JaimeChinook
Nov 16, 07:21 AM
I do not use a continuously-connected Time Machine. I keep my TM backups on a drive that connects via USB and it normally resides in my fire-proof safe. TM is only active once a week (or so) when I decide to backup.
I know, all the Mac users who work their machines 24/7 are probably aghast at the idea of not letting TM have 24/7 wireless access. But maybe my technique will prevent the type of TM loss mentioned above... so long as I don't let Sophos run when my backups are going on??
I know, all the Mac users who work their machines 24/7 are probably aghast at the idea of not letting TM have 24/7 wireless access. But maybe my technique will prevent the type of TM loss mentioned above... so long as I don't let Sophos run when my backups are going on??
bigwig
May 6, 04:26 AM
You could put a lot of ARM cores in the same space one x86 uses, and I think ARM is the superior ISA. Intel had a chance in Itanium to dump x86, but it was a half-hearted effort (current version arrived 3 years late and uses an obsolete 65nm process) and spent all their money improving x86. I have no doubt that Microsoft's refusal to support Itanium had something to do with it.
Intel's advantage is in its manufacturing, not its CPU design. x86 is a hack, but combine it with billions of dollars in semiconductor research and there's no way ARM competes with x86. Intel might fab ARM cores, but there's no way they let their best tech (22nm, 3D) be used on ARM unless they intend to dump Atom.
Intel's advantage is in its manufacturing, not its CPU design. x86 is a hack, but combine it with billions of dollars in semiconductor research and there's no way ARM competes with x86. Intel might fab ARM cores, but there's no way they let their best tech (22nm, 3D) be used on ARM unless they intend to dump Atom.
sonictonic
Aug 11, 02:47 PM
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
Well said! :)
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
Well said! :)
ThunderSkunk
Apr 25, 10:46 AM
I like Steves sense of brevity.
Perhaps if people bothered to look up some info on what they were talking about before they went off half-cocked about the latest hyped paranoia...
Perhaps if people bothered to look up some info on what they were talking about before they went off half-cocked about the latest hyped paranoia...
iStudentUK
Apr 10, 11:21 AM
In my opinion-
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
48/2(9+3) = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 2
To make it clear you could write it with ( ... )^-1 like a real man! :D
.gif "Other educational dress up")
McGiord
Apr 10, 11:13 AM
I wish there was a poll option of who is getting 288 and is say in a technical field such as engineering/stats/physics, etc
My guess is that 288 is coming from people who use math extensively and 2 coming from those who may not...
Wrong.
My guess is that 288 is coming from people who use math extensively and 2 coming from those who may not...
Wrong.
Tilpots
Apr 9, 08:41 PM
You are 100% wrong. Ask any elementary school math teacher.
The lack of proper notation makes the equation ambiguous. 100% of Elementary School teachers should agree.
The lack of proper notation makes the equation ambiguous. 100% of Elementary School teachers should agree.
Snowy_River
Nov 26, 11:06 AM
To me, Tablets are worthless. I've had to deal with them at work because some people continue to order them for all their tasks, but they're less mobile than some laptops. They're usually the same thickness or size as a portable, so why carry something that's going to be crippled in some manner?
Are they not getting the latest generation of tablet / laptop? These are functional as both, by allowing the screen to flip over, concealing the keyboard to act as a tablet, or simply opening up as a standard laptop. For example:
http://www.toshibadirect.com/images/products/prod_portM400_300x300.jpg
Now, while I'm sure there are issues that come up with a joint like that, I'm also sure that Apple could come up with a way to make it quite rugged. They could have a MacBook Pro Tablet Edition. I have been desiring such a thing for quite some time. (I even considered custom building my own out of an older PB G3. Too much cost for too little reward in processing power. I want it as a new, relatively top-of-the-line computer... :D )
Are they not getting the latest generation of tablet / laptop? These are functional as both, by allowing the screen to flip over, concealing the keyboard to act as a tablet, or simply opening up as a standard laptop. For example:
http://www.toshibadirect.com/images/products/prod_portM400_300x300.jpg
Now, while I'm sure there are issues that come up with a joint like that, I'm also sure that Apple could come up with a way to make it quite rugged. They could have a MacBook Pro Tablet Edition. I have been desiring such a thing for quite some time. (I even considered custom building my own out of an older PB G3. Too much cost for too little reward in processing power. I want it as a new, relatively top-of-the-line computer... :D )
Small White Car
Apr 5, 01:31 PM
But Toyota wasn't jailbreaking. Didn't the courts rule that Apple couldn't stop the jailbreak community?
Yes, but the ruling was based on the fact that it's all for 'personal use.'
Once they start taking $$$ from multinational corporations it sure seem less like 'personal use,' doesn't it?
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure, but I sure thought Cydia was opening up a can of worms when I read about this yesterday. It's probably good for them that Toyota pulled out. I could see the jailbreak community getting less leeway with courts in the future if they start raking in millions of dollars. Then they suddenly start looking like a competing company trying to steal Apple's business, don't they?
It may be legal for Cydia to do this, but I was quite worried that it would make their lives very unpleasent in the future if they kept it up. I like how all the jailbreakers in this thread are acting like this was a good thing. It honestly could have ended up being the thing that caused the most damage to jailbreaking!
Yes, but the ruling was based on the fact that it's all for 'personal use.'
Once they start taking $$$ from multinational corporations it sure seem less like 'personal use,' doesn't it?
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure, but I sure thought Cydia was opening up a can of worms when I read about this yesterday. It's probably good for them that Toyota pulled out. I could see the jailbreak community getting less leeway with courts in the future if they start raking in millions of dollars. Then they suddenly start looking like a competing company trying to steal Apple's business, don't they?
It may be legal for Cydia to do this, but I was quite worried that it would make their lives very unpleasent in the future if they kept it up. I like how all the jailbreakers in this thread are acting like this was a good thing. It honestly could have ended up being the thing that caused the most damage to jailbreaking!
mdntcallr
Aug 11, 11:11 AM
apple needs to introduce a computer which is between the mac mini and the mac pro tower.
I want a mini tower, with 2 pci slots. you know something in the price range of $899-999 usd.
where i can upgrade the graphics card or order it with a better graphics card.
Some of us do not want to be tied to the imac screen/body. I love to be able to upgrade my own computer's graphics card.
Cmon apple. give us a mid tier system we can upgrade ourselves. The Macmini just doesnt cut it. virtually the only thing in that we can chance is the CPU, Memory or hard drive.
I want a mini tower, with 2 pci slots. you know something in the price range of $899-999 usd.
where i can upgrade the graphics card or order it with a better graphics card.
Some of us do not want to be tied to the imac screen/body. I love to be able to upgrade my own computer's graphics card.
Cmon apple. give us a mid tier system we can upgrade ourselves. The Macmini just doesnt cut it. virtually the only thing in that we can chance is the CPU, Memory or hard drive.
LBmacman
Aug 7, 03:29 PM
Damn thats a lot of power. The 2.66 model seems to be the best deal. :)
macindork
Apr 24, 04:31 PM
You do realise you can switch your multi-path policy to something like Round-Robin or Least used link or something and use both your fabrics at the same time, giving you double bandwidth (in your 4 Gig port configuration, giving you 8 Gbps, or in a 8 Gbps FC configuration, 16) right ? Actually, you should have a look at what it is set to, some versions of ESX and ESXi are completely retarded and set the default policy to use Fabric 1 only (older versions prior to 4.x didn't have a supported configuration for using both paths at the same time, the support was experimental I believe).
Or you can run FCoE or FCoIP and use dual 10 Gbps for FC on the cheap (I do realise HBAs can be pricey). Or heck, iSCSI over 10 Gbps links...
Also, looking at my current I/O statistics for one of our biggest ESXi boxes (about 20 VMs), I see we average about... 10 mbps over the fiber. ;) Servers aren't constantly writing at full bandwidth anyhow and the convenience of centralized SAN management trumps Direct Attached Storage any day of the week in a data center environnement.
Heck, I wish our DMZ servers could be attached to the SAN (stupid Security policies) so that I could actually grow the filesystems on which the file repository sits... seeing how Sun (now Oracle) wants to charge us over 10k$ for about 72 GBs of disks, just because the hardware is EOL'd and it lacks the 2nd controller so that we can use the drive bays that are free in it...
If I am not mistaken our PE 2970s are 10gig (x4), I do not know about the Equallogic (I'm just the "helper" on most of this anyway) but I assume it is 10gig as well. What makes this funny to me is that we should be able to use one physical link per server back to the equallogic and have greater throughput versus going from the 2950 to a 3com 4500 (1gig switch, I 10gig switch would be a great start here) and back to the equallogic. (that would throw out redundancy though)(Lead systems guy threw in a 4400 by mistake initally) Most of our VMs are file sharing servers instead of processing servers, I would think the higher the transmit speed the better. We also recently added an R715 and it likes to take the brunt of the load from the cluster (16 physical cores/32GB RAM in it vs 8/32GB in the 2950s) so it having greater throughput would be helpful. We are on 4.1, I will def look into the multipath policy, thanks :)
Or you can run FCoE or FCoIP and use dual 10 Gbps for FC on the cheap (I do realise HBAs can be pricey). Or heck, iSCSI over 10 Gbps links...
Also, looking at my current I/O statistics for one of our biggest ESXi boxes (about 20 VMs), I see we average about... 10 mbps over the fiber. ;) Servers aren't constantly writing at full bandwidth anyhow and the convenience of centralized SAN management trumps Direct Attached Storage any day of the week in a data center environnement.
Heck, I wish our DMZ servers could be attached to the SAN (stupid Security policies) so that I could actually grow the filesystems on which the file repository sits... seeing how Sun (now Oracle) wants to charge us over 10k$ for about 72 GBs of disks, just because the hardware is EOL'd and it lacks the 2nd controller so that we can use the drive bays that are free in it...
If I am not mistaken our PE 2970s are 10gig (x4), I do not know about the Equallogic (I'm just the "helper" on most of this anyway) but I assume it is 10gig as well. What makes this funny to me is that we should be able to use one physical link per server back to the equallogic and have greater throughput versus going from the 2950 to a 3com 4500 (1gig switch, I 10gig switch would be a great start here) and back to the equallogic. (that would throw out redundancy though)(Lead systems guy threw in a 4400 by mistake initally) Most of our VMs are file sharing servers instead of processing servers, I would think the higher the transmit speed the better. We also recently added an R715 and it likes to take the brunt of the load from the cluster (16 physical cores/32GB RAM in it vs 8/32GB in the 2950s) so it having greater throughput would be helpful. We are on 4.1, I will def look into the multipath policy, thanks :)
Eidorian
Jul 21, 01:55 PM
I'm ready to pay Apple. Something under $1500 please. :cool:
YS2003
Nov 26, 11:41 AM
I hope this rumor is true. If Apple is going to bring out the Tablet Mac, I would be buying one as long as it is a fully functional computer. I like my Fujitsu Tablet PC; but, it is still Windows-based PC. If Apple is going to market this, I guess their tablet Mac would be a very slick unit. I think non-tablet PC users are quick to dismiss the tablet format without knowing and experiencing it themselves. Fujitsu, Lenovo, Electrovaya, Motion Computer and a few others make a very light weight tablets. I don't like ones from Gateway and Toshiba as their units are way too heavy and chunky (and ugly looking to boot).
codeus
Apr 21, 04:40 PM
quite right... no xserve is FUBAR.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 11:24 PM
I expect all of the above. Why not? Apple's on a roll now. Keep the steamroller rolling. :)
Plus the Mid-Tower Conroe Mac I think.
Plus the Mid-Tower Conroe Mac I think.
kxbcvoi
Apr 23, 11:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
So I gonna have a hard time finding wallpaper.
So I gonna have a hard time finding wallpaper.
KindredMAC
Aug 7, 09:35 PM
You can get third party 1GB sticks for about $200 each. No point in wasting slots with more 512 sticks. You can run fine with 1GB out of the box. It will be plenty fast. I would also dumb down the HD to 160 and save another $75 which is what you can buy a 250 for IN ADDITION TO THE 160 you will get - even 400GB/300 SATA for only about $99 - $129.
I recommend base MINUS $75 HD DOWN to 160GB plus maybe ADD Bluetooth for $29 and perhaps ADD a second video card if you have three or four monitors for $150 more and that's IT.
$2603 List Retail or $2393 Educational Plus Tax.
That's less than I paid for this Refurbed G5 Quad - such a deal. ;)
RAM and HDs from third parties. Airport can be done later if you don't need it now.
I'd watch that last sentence... Airport was NOT an option you could add on LATER with the PowerMac G5's. Are you sure about that statement?
I recommend base MINUS $75 HD DOWN to 160GB plus maybe ADD Bluetooth for $29 and perhaps ADD a second video card if you have three or four monitors for $150 more and that's IT.
$2603 List Retail or $2393 Educational Plus Tax.
That's less than I paid for this Refurbed G5 Quad - such a deal. ;)
RAM and HDs from third parties. Airport can be done later if you don't need it now.
I'd watch that last sentence... Airport was NOT an option you could add on LATER with the PowerMac G5's. Are you sure about that statement?
McGiord
Apr 9, 07:42 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
Popeye206
Apr 5, 04:27 PM
This whole discussion is stupid.
Apple is not going to endorse a major company's ad program that encourages the general consumer to JB their phone. It's risky for many people and it voids the Apple warrantee. Period.
Apple asking Toyota to pull it was the only thing they could do and Toyota was smart enough to see the error in their way.
Sorry... but JB has risks and it's not for everyone.
Apple is not going to endorse a major company's ad program that encourages the general consumer to JB their phone. It's risky for many people and it voids the Apple warrantee. Period.
Apple asking Toyota to pull it was the only thing they could do and Toyota was smart enough to see the error in their way.
Sorry... but JB has risks and it's not for everyone.
babbit
Apr 18, 03:32 PM
LG was first (before iPhone) to release smart phone with capacitive screen and UI that looks suspiciously close to iPhone. Here is Prada:
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
peterdevries
Mar 28, 11:10 AM
This better not happen. Seriously.
Or else what?
Or else what?
pmz
Mar 28, 11:14 AM
This better not happen. Seriously.
Or else what?
Several things. Apple's stock growth will slow, and the price will take a hit. Big deal? Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you definitively that there is a large amount of padding in the price based on Apple keeping up with it's own defined yearly cycle. The successive cycle that has stayed strict through every iPhone, iPod, iPad, and iOS launch for 5 years has created a pattern that Apple must stick to, or risk losing ground in the mind of investors.
No one ever expected/demanded Apple to go to a yearly cycle for such advanced refreshes, but they're the ones who chose to do it. If they now begin to fall behind, the growth they've seen WILL suffer, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Or else what?
Several things. Apple's stock growth will slow, and the price will take a hit. Big deal? Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you definitively that there is a large amount of padding in the price based on Apple keeping up with it's own defined yearly cycle. The successive cycle that has stayed strict through every iPhone, iPod, iPad, and iOS launch for 5 years has created a pattern that Apple must stick to, or risk losing ground in the mind of investors.
No one ever expected/demanded Apple to go to a yearly cycle for such advanced refreshes, but they're the ones who chose to do it. If they now begin to fall behind, the growth they've seen WILL suffer, no ifs ands or buts about it.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
0 comments:
Post a Comment