-aggie-
May 5, 10:41 PM
i would settle for a level treasure ;)
Psychic?
OP�s please put our HP/AP in the latest post.
Psychic?
OP�s please put our HP/AP in the latest post.
kavika411
Apr 15, 04:00 PM
the historical record is more than enough to discount the idea that lowering taxes produces net positives for the economy. America experienced its highest growth years when the top tax rate was over 90% and after taxes had been raised in the 90s. Conversely we've seen a decline in our economic fortunes after 10 years of lower and lower tax rates.
Assuming (1) changes in tax policy have immediate effects, and (2) there is no such thing as as normal economic business cycles that overlay tax changes.
Assuming (1) changes in tax policy have immediate effects, and (2) there is no such thing as as normal economic business cycles that overlay tax changes.
Piggie
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
What was the point in bringing retina display to the iPhone? :)
Same thing I guess...
For one I want it, it is very kind on the eyes...
Yes, because the iPhone was low res for a device you hold up to your nose and a typical consumer, which is what Apple design for, could easily see the pixels.
I am wondering how many typical consumers, when viewing at the distance you would view, say a 24" monitor, can make out individual pixels.
I do know Apple's font smoothing is a little, ummmm, shall we say, different to what Microsoft do, so perhaps typefaces do look more jaggy on a Mac than they do on a PC ?
Same thing I guess...
For one I want it, it is very kind on the eyes...
Yes, because the iPhone was low res for a device you hold up to your nose and a typical consumer, which is what Apple design for, could easily see the pixels.
I am wondering how many typical consumers, when viewing at the distance you would view, say a 24" monitor, can make out individual pixels.
I do know Apple's font smoothing is a little, ummmm, shall we say, different to what Microsoft do, so perhaps typefaces do look more jaggy on a Mac than they do on a PC ?
shaolindave
May 4, 05:51 PM
Thank you for making my point for me. Last time I checked you were the one making predictions that Lion was going to be handled in the store exactly like every other app.
All I am saying is that there is no proof to point either way at the moment. But coming to a conclusion that Lion is going to be handled like every other app is like concluding that the iPhone SDK, when released, was going to be exactly like "web apps" were previously.
i "predict" the next car i buy will have four wheels.
i don't "predict" that Lion will be handled the same as every other App Store product, but there's reason to believe it will be, and that's a cause for concern.
please stop putting words in my mouth.
All I am saying is that there is no proof to point either way at the moment. But coming to a conclusion that Lion is going to be handled like every other app is like concluding that the iPhone SDK, when released, was going to be exactly like "web apps" were previously.
i "predict" the next car i buy will have four wheels.
i don't "predict" that Lion will be handled the same as every other App Store product, but there's reason to believe it will be, and that's a cause for concern.
please stop putting words in my mouth.
Creative One
Apr 9, 09:29 PM
The answer is 288. Anyone who think's it is two doesn't know math.
jholzner
Aug 11, 02:00 PM
No, my point is that I think Apple will continue to do what it's always done, and that those arguing that they'll suddenly treat product announcements differently just because their chips are now supplied by Intel are only speculating.
Well, they released the Macbook with nothing more than a press release and an update to their site. This product had a complete make over and looks almost nothing like the iBook it replaced. Why no special event? I think things WILL be changing due to the Intel transition. They will have to treat announcements differently. No more will there be a year between speed increases etc.
Well, they released the Macbook with nothing more than a press release and an update to their site. This product had a complete make over and looks almost nothing like the iBook it replaced. Why no special event? I think things WILL be changing due to the Intel transition. They will have to treat announcements differently. No more will there be a year between speed increases etc.
Pressure
Sep 16, 10:01 AM
Thanks for the condescending tone in response to an off-the-cuff "would be nice" comment -- it makes you look such a man.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
I meant Geforce GO7800, a mistake on my part.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
I meant Geforce GO7800, a mistake on my part.
asdf542
Mar 31, 08:58 AM
Wow, the level of arrogance and lack of respect on MacRumors never ceases to amaze me. Every thread, and I mean every, turns into a free for all of personal attacks and insults. Interesting that I never once insulted or disrespected any one individual, yet two responses attempt to personally attack me. Do you know me? Why is this a personal matter for you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
Lol...
So where exactly did I personally insult you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
Lol...
So where exactly did I personally insult you?
Doenertier
Sep 11, 03:57 PM
What we should get:
Movie Service with 1280x720 movies, Airport Extreme AV with composite, s-video and hdmi outputs.
What we will get:
Movie service with 320x240 movies, Airport Express AV with compostie and s-video only.
:(
nope (the latter). Apple wouldn't have been waiting this long. this would be an announcement for the 1st of April. Apple has been preparing for years (since opening the movie store) to bring on movies for $9.99 to $14.99 at 320x240.
Seriously. TV shows in this resolution are okay for $1.99 and for watching on your iPod when you're on the go. That's great. But Apple is delivering the whole package. As they did with iPod+iTunes. Now there's a frontend in the line for your TV. And you are sitting on your couch. As you were on the go with your iPod. Either media center or streaming solution. And it will be at least DVD-quality if not 720p. No prob with a H.264 at 2-6 mpbs. Files for a 90 minute movie at 700 mb (near-DVD-quality) to 4.5 GB (HD 720p).
I just hope for a renting solution as this is what people do with MOVIES.
Comparison MUSIC ---> MOVIES
solution: on the go ---> on the couch
license: owning ---> renting
price: $.99 ---> $3.99
That is an Apple way of doing. If they have another solution: bring it on; it's gonna make sense.
Movie Service with 1280x720 movies, Airport Extreme AV with composite, s-video and hdmi outputs.
What we will get:
Movie service with 320x240 movies, Airport Express AV with compostie and s-video only.
:(
nope (the latter). Apple wouldn't have been waiting this long. this would be an announcement for the 1st of April. Apple has been preparing for years (since opening the movie store) to bring on movies for $9.99 to $14.99 at 320x240.
Seriously. TV shows in this resolution are okay for $1.99 and for watching on your iPod when you're on the go. That's great. But Apple is delivering the whole package. As they did with iPod+iTunes. Now there's a frontend in the line for your TV. And you are sitting on your couch. As you were on the go with your iPod. Either media center or streaming solution. And it will be at least DVD-quality if not 720p. No prob with a H.264 at 2-6 mpbs. Files for a 90 minute movie at 700 mb (near-DVD-quality) to 4.5 GB (HD 720p).
I just hope for a renting solution as this is what people do with MOVIES.
Comparison MUSIC ---> MOVIES
solution: on the go ---> on the couch
license: owning ---> renting
price: $.99 ---> $3.99
That is an Apple way of doing. If they have another solution: bring it on; it's gonna make sense.
Piggie
Apr 23, 06:25 PM
Because those screens WILL look better to those normal customers. Text and graphics will look sharper, and clearer.
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
The iPhone, before the current model had a screen res of 320 x 480
The first iMac, made 13 years ago in 1998 (the G3) had a screen res of 1024x768 the same as an iPad2 they are making today.
The first Apple Mac in 1984, 27 years ago had a screen res of 512�342 on a black and white screen.
I don't know where you get your statement than the "iPhone had a higher resolution than macs"
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
The iPhone, before the current model had a screen res of 320 x 480
The first iMac, made 13 years ago in 1998 (the G3) had a screen res of 1024x768 the same as an iPad2 they are making today.
The first Apple Mac in 1984, 27 years ago had a screen res of 512�342 on a black and white screen.
I don't know where you get your statement than the "iPhone had a higher resolution than macs"
Glen Quagmire
Aug 7, 01:50 PM
Pretty impressive specs, aside from the fairly hopeless 7300GT graphics card.
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
ayasin
Apr 18, 03:31 PM
Apple is devoid of morals and innovation? Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea of Apple's philanthropy? Also, Apple INVENTED the whole concept of touch UI for iPhone and iPad
Yep you're right. Apple invented the touch UI. Before Apple, Palm used a keyboard and mouse to dial numbers in the Palm OS phones. Also what philanthropy are you talking about?
Yep you're right. Apple invented the touch UI. Before Apple, Palm used a keyboard and mouse to dial numbers in the Palm OS phones. Also what philanthropy are you talking about?
jasonefmonk
May 6, 01:47 AM
There have been good reasons discussed for why this could happen. Mainly the future goals of ARM development, and the fusion of iOS and OSX.
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
I still can't see how ARM could keep up with Intel. I just got a new MacBook Pro, it's just the base model but it has a hell of a kick for 2.3GHz dual core. It seems to virtually create four cores (threads?). Intel always seems to be ahead of expectation with performance and efficiency. Apple has a lot of money, but can they really buy all the experience needed to compete with a company of this much history?
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 3, 11:25 AM
http://www.onedigitallife.com/2006/08/02/wwdc-2006-banner/
allegedly a banner from WWDC 2006...
oops! seen it another thread now, my bad.
"Allegedly"
Or a banner for Paris Expo? Hope not.
allegedly a banner from WWDC 2006...
oops! seen it another thread now, my bad.
"Allegedly"
Or a banner for Paris Expo? Hope not.
Daveoc64
May 4, 02:57 PM
It's only Macs you've logged into using your iTunes account. In theory this is MORE restrictive. In the past I could buy 1 Tiger disk and put it anywhere and everywhere. No one would know
With now with Lion and this app-store method, I've gotta be logged in to my friend's computer, giving him access to download apps using my name...and using my gift-card money I've inputted. Hmm...doesn't sound like such a good deal anymore.
You only have to enter your username/password when you download or update the App.
In the case of Mac OS X that should only be once - not a particularly big risk.
As for being more restrictive, you're choosing to break the terms of the licence if you install it on more than one machine.
With the App Store, Apple not only allows you to install thing on any computer you use (multiple times) they make it incredibly easy to do so.
With now with Lion and this app-store method, I've gotta be logged in to my friend's computer, giving him access to download apps using my name...and using my gift-card money I've inputted. Hmm...doesn't sound like such a good deal anymore.
You only have to enter your username/password when you download or update the App.
In the case of Mac OS X that should only be once - not a particularly big risk.
As for being more restrictive, you're choosing to break the terms of the licence if you install it on more than one machine.
With the App Store, Apple not only allows you to install thing on any computer you use (multiple times) they make it incredibly easy to do so.
ender land
Apr 10, 11:39 AM
Please go back and read my previous posts.
Oh wow, your previous arguments about how "because spotlight says 2 therefore it is true no matter what" are just so convincing!
Oh wow, your previous arguments about how "because spotlight says 2 therefore it is true no matter what" are just so convincing!
Chupa Chupa
May 4, 02:56 PM
I would get a new iMac now if I knew that Lion would run SL pricing at $29. Otherwise I will wait for a preload. But obviously pricing and a release date won't be forthcoming prior to WWDC at the earliest. Guess we will know more in about 5 weeks.
On yesterday's MacBreak Weekly they were talking about this. The consensus was that the d/l version will be ultra cheap similar to SL b/c Apple wants people to migrate quickly. And then there will be a retail box that will sell for more for those who either can't or don't want to d/l. There is a patter of this in iLife, iWork, Aperture, etc., where the d/l version is much less expensive than the retail box.
On yesterday's MacBreak Weekly they were talking about this. The consensus was that the d/l version will be ultra cheap similar to SL b/c Apple wants people to migrate quickly. And then there will be a retail box that will sell for more for those who either can't or don't want to d/l. There is a patter of this in iLife, iWork, Aperture, etc., where the d/l version is much less expensive than the retail box.
ChrisA
Nov 22, 01:49 PM
Here is my prediction:
The number one characteristic of the first generation of Apple phones will be that they a "#$+@ expensive".
What does this mean? A concept they teach in business school is how to set a price to maximize profit. It's easy to see that if you price it to low you sell a zillion units but loose money and if priced to high you don't sell any so there is a sweet spot where the number of units sold times the per unit margin is maximized. In theory you can write an equation to model this then do some math to find it's maximum point. (remember: set the derivative to zero then solve for X from Calculus 101?) So much for theory. I doubt they will do that. I think Apple will price these higher then the theoretical "best" price. This way they sell far fewer units then they otherwise would. This let's them grow their service side of the iPhone business at a manageable rate. If Apple's business plan is sane they can't be going for a large share of the cell phone market
OK so in short they use a high price to throttle sales to a rate their service can support. I'm thinking this will be a $500 phone with a $99/month minimum contract. Basically you ain't going to get a free Apple iPhone with your $29.00/month 2 year contract.
Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac
The number one characteristic of the first generation of Apple phones will be that they a "#$+@ expensive".
What does this mean? A concept they teach in business school is how to set a price to maximize profit. It's easy to see that if you price it to low you sell a zillion units but loose money and if priced to high you don't sell any so there is a sweet spot where the number of units sold times the per unit margin is maximized. In theory you can write an equation to model this then do some math to find it's maximum point. (remember: set the derivative to zero then solve for X from Calculus 101?) So much for theory. I doubt they will do that. I think Apple will price these higher then the theoretical "best" price. This way they sell far fewer units then they otherwise would. This let's them grow their service side of the iPhone business at a manageable rate. If Apple's business plan is sane they can't be going for a large share of the cell phone market
OK so in short they use a high price to throttle sales to a rate their service can support. I'm thinking this will be a $500 phone with a $99/month minimum contract. Basically you ain't going to get a free Apple iPhone with your $29.00/month 2 year contract.
Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac
thejadedmonkey
Aug 4, 03:28 AM
This is not a question of Appleinsider being reliable, more a matter of rumor sites making a guess that is absolutely obvious. There is no way that Apple could _not_ use Merom in the future, since Intel will sell it at exactly the same price that it charges for Yonah today.
Well, Steve Jobs could always announce that Apple is transitioning to PPC G6 chips, and that the x86 reign is over ;)
Well, Steve Jobs could always announce that Apple is transitioning to PPC G6 chips, and that the x86 reign is over ;)
nitynate
Sep 11, 05:27 AM
:rolleyes:
Well, my generation, we dont need wheel barrows!
We get 10MB/s connections.
Aye.
Well, my generation, we dont need wheel barrows!
We get 10MB/s connections.
Aye.
cerote
Apr 5, 09:09 PM
Hmmm... I think I'll go jailbreak my iPod touch now.
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
SBSettings.
Toggles for settings that you can get to with a single swipe across the status bar.
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
SBSettings.
Toggles for settings that you can get to with a single swipe across the status bar.
danr_97070
Jul 21, 04:25 PM
You don't know much about this topic do ya :p
This is the thing I was referring to; if I knew more about it, I'd be working for
Intel or Apple... I guess...
http://www.macosrumors.com/20060402B.php
This is the thing I was referring to; if I knew more about it, I'd be working for
Intel or Apple... I guess...
http://www.macosrumors.com/20060402B.php
Benjy91
Apr 25, 09:55 AM
And remarkably inaccurate when I looked myself up. It has a bit of correct information on my parents. I'm actually surprised at how wrong they were since I have a fairly large internet footprint (of course, these guys probably don't have Google's database since they're just skimming).
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
No comments:
Post a Comment