0815
Apr 25, 09:01 AM
Call me naive (or perhaps paranoid) but I've been assuming my location is being tracked since I bought my first smart phone years ago.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
Rayd5365
Mar 29, 02:27 PM
Those idiots at Amazon probably still think that iOS is a close ecosystem where Apple restricts competitors in order to be able to rip off their loyal customer base.
Yep, In the case of this Amazon app/offering, that's exactly what iOS is.
The Amazon Android app lets you:
a. stream music from the cloud
b. using the mobile app, purchase music from the amazon mp3 store and
c. download that purchased music to your local android devices music library.
You simply cannot replicate that functionality with an ios app and get it approved by Apple.
There's one Apple approved way to get music onto your iPhone/Pod/Pad's local music library. Itunes.
Now I buy all my online music from Amazon and it get's into iTunes and onto my iPhone, iPad and various iPod's just fine. But only by using a computer and then syncing over the wire.
Wouldn't it be so much easier if I could just buy the damned music from Amazon ON my iPhone and have it sync BACK to iTunes and then onto my other devices, wirelessly.
Would Amazon jump at the chance to offer me that ability?
They most certainly would.
Would Apple aapprove that app?
Not a chance.
Yep, In the case of this Amazon app/offering, that's exactly what iOS is.
The Amazon Android app lets you:
a. stream music from the cloud
b. using the mobile app, purchase music from the amazon mp3 store and
c. download that purchased music to your local android devices music library.
You simply cannot replicate that functionality with an ios app and get it approved by Apple.
There's one Apple approved way to get music onto your iPhone/Pod/Pad's local music library. Itunes.
Now I buy all my online music from Amazon and it get's into iTunes and onto my iPhone, iPad and various iPod's just fine. But only by using a computer and then syncing over the wire.
Wouldn't it be so much easier if I could just buy the damned music from Amazon ON my iPhone and have it sync BACK to iTunes and then onto my other devices, wirelessly.
Would Amazon jump at the chance to offer me that ability?
They most certainly would.
Would Apple aapprove that app?
Not a chance.
flopticalcube
May 4, 03:50 PM
You sound like every Mac OS X user is located in the US.
Many countries have caps. US, Canada, Australia.
Many countries have caps. US, Canada, Australia.
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
LionsKiss
Sep 16, 02:36 PM
Current MBP specs 12" would be perfect for me, fast, portable. Of course if a 12" MBP comes then a C2D comes.
7on
Nov 27, 02:32 PM
I would sell my Macbook in an instant to buy a MacTablet.
It'd be the perfect tool for Illustrators and CG artists.
It'd be the perfect tool for Illustrators and CG artists.
RndmAxess
Jul 29, 10:09 PM
deleted
Bibulous
Sep 10, 11:04 PM
$3-4.99 rentals of brand new movies would be awesome. Otherwise, "meh"
I can't get to excited about this, it will take me 10 hours to download 2GB :eek:
I can't get to excited about this, it will take me 10 hours to download 2GB :eek:
jav6454
May 3, 12:56 PM
Too involved for me at this moment. I'll pass; although I have to admit the game sounds pretty interesting. RPG FTW!
AndroidfoLife
Apr 5, 04:12 PM
The problem is that people want to think of an iPhone as a PC. They apply PC analogies and logic. However the reality is that the cell industry has more in common with appliances or consoles. It's traditionally a heavily curated environment.
Apple: Start with a "restricted" system and open it up to allow for PC like advantages. (The App Store is an example of this)
Google: Start with an "open" system and lock it down to meet carrier needs and leverage the advantages of curation. (The Google Market place is an example of this)
Android is still open... They are just going to be much more tighter on what Products qualify to get the google Logo and the android name.
Apple: Start with a "restricted" system and open it up to allow for PC like advantages. (The App Store is an example of this)
Google: Start with an "open" system and lock it down to meet carrier needs and leverage the advantages of curation. (The Google Market place is an example of this)
Android is still open... They are just going to be much more tighter on what Products qualify to get the google Logo and the android name.
talkingfuture
Apr 7, 09:31 AM
That cash mountain that Apple have must be really useful for this kind of thing.
0010101
Nov 25, 08:11 PM
Well the funny thing really is that Apple hasn't ever said they were going to make an iPhone, and all this rumor and speculation is based on a .org domain name and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.
Let's not forget 'iPod' was originally the name they were going to call a sit in internet kiosk type thing, not a music player.
Apple could very well just be cooking up a cellular capable iPod to enable wireless downloads from the iTunes store directly to the device.. which makes way more sense than trying to jump into an already saturated market with low profit margins and tremendous competition.
Let's not forget 'iPod' was originally the name they were going to call a sit in internet kiosk type thing, not a music player.
Apple could very well just be cooking up a cellular capable iPod to enable wireless downloads from the iTunes store directly to the device.. which makes way more sense than trying to jump into an already saturated market with low profit margins and tremendous competition.
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 ;)
ozone
Nov 27, 10:40 PM
While your needs are not the same as mine, we both seem to find this an important technology to work with. I do believe there is a BIG market out there, no one has really been able to capture it. Maybe it is just a timing thing?
I agree ... there could be a myriad of reasons why the tablet platform is not as universally accepted as one would think. I've never stipulated that everybody must use a tablet or that it is perfect. What is irritating are the perpetual naysayers who focus on one aspect while ignoring everything else it has to offer and its potential. :)
I agree ... there could be a myriad of reasons why the tablet platform is not as universally accepted as one would think. I've never stipulated that everybody must use a tablet or that it is perfect. What is irritating are the perpetual naysayers who focus on one aspect while ignoring everything else it has to offer and its potential. :)
inkswamp
Sep 11, 04:43 AM
Round wheels on those wheelbarrows? You were lucky!
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
Ooooh... how we used to dream of wheels made out of lead. Ours were made of depleted uranium. :eek:
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
Ooooh... how we used to dream of wheels made out of lead. Ours were made of depleted uranium. :eek:
roland.g
May 4, 04:00 PM
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Use TM for your Home Folder and things like that. Even Apps. You can always reinstall and update an OS. Don't bother TMing your OS.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
I use CCC but only to clone my external iTunes media drive to a clone of it set, incremental of course, so if anything gets deleted, the clone doesn't delete it. But I TM by internal drive to a separate drive.
Internal 750 - OS, Apps, Docs, Photo Library, etc.
External 2 TB - iTunes media drive - all movies, iOS Apps, Music, etc. Everything iTunes.
External 2 TB - incremental clone of iTunes drive.
External 750 - TM of internal drive.
External 2 TB - Offsite, monthly backup of iTunes drive and TM drive. Because if there is a house fire or something, I have all the media, esp. photos and home movies on a safe backup.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Use TM for your Home Folder and things like that. Even Apps. You can always reinstall and update an OS. Don't bother TMing your OS.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
I use CCC but only to clone my external iTunes media drive to a clone of it set, incremental of course, so if anything gets deleted, the clone doesn't delete it. But I TM by internal drive to a separate drive.
Internal 750 - OS, Apps, Docs, Photo Library, etc.
External 2 TB - iTunes media drive - all movies, iOS Apps, Music, etc. Everything iTunes.
External 2 TB - incremental clone of iTunes drive.
External 750 - TM of internal drive.
External 2 TB - Offsite, monthly backup of iTunes drive and TM drive. Because if there is a house fire or something, I have all the media, esp. photos and home movies on a safe backup.
Leondunkleyc
Aug 2, 05:07 PM
.
TSX
Mar 26, 09:34 PM
iPhone 5 with no iOS 5, yea right
G4DP
Mar 29, 02:02 PM
I'd pay a premium for products manufactured in the US.
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
Up to another 50% on what they already cost?
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
Up to another 50% on what they already cost?
coolwater
Apr 9, 08:34 PM
Same brand scientific calculator, two different answers. :rolleyes:
leman
May 6, 02:15 AM
Your app is prolly simple enough that you could do that. Consider more complex apps such as games and video-editing that require extensive use of the x86 architecture. That's the real problem.
People who still use assembly in their software are just sad. There is absolutely NO reason to use CPU-specific stuff, not anymore, as we have OpenCL and similar tech for performance-critical parallel computations.
The only field where hand-coded assembly makes sense are interpreters.
And in all seriousness, that is the real issue. Switching from x86 to ARM RISC is a really big problem because the benefit of x86 is that so much work has been done on it, porting Windows apps and/or games is simply a software coding issue as opposed to hardware. Even if ARM had comparable processes to x86 to compensate to some degree, that's still another series of steps to go through.
And this is precisely the reason why the inefficient and outdated architecture like x86 is still alive. If Apple has the courage to make the first step towards a better tech: I will applaud them.
Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
You are joking, right? x86 CPU is a completely different pair of shoes from the ARM CPUs. Later can be designed easily. First ones are absolute monsters in terms of complexity. Intel has decades of design experience which all live in their current CPU line. Destroy all the information about Sandy Bridge designs from Intel servers, and it will take them at least 5 years to reconstruct it.
People who still use assembly in their software are just sad. There is absolutely NO reason to use CPU-specific stuff, not anymore, as we have OpenCL and similar tech for performance-critical parallel computations.
The only field where hand-coded assembly makes sense are interpreters.
And in all seriousness, that is the real issue. Switching from x86 to ARM RISC is a really big problem because the benefit of x86 is that so much work has been done on it, porting Windows apps and/or games is simply a software coding issue as opposed to hardware. Even if ARM had comparable processes to x86 to compensate to some degree, that's still another series of steps to go through.
And this is precisely the reason why the inefficient and outdated architecture like x86 is still alive. If Apple has the courage to make the first step towards a better tech: I will applaud them.
Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
You are joking, right? x86 CPU is a completely different pair of shoes from the ARM CPUs. Later can be designed easily. First ones are absolute monsters in terms of complexity. Intel has decades of design experience which all live in their current CPU line. Destroy all the information about Sandy Bridge designs from Intel servers, and it will take them at least 5 years to reconstruct it.
kevink2
Mar 28, 12:12 PM
This may explain why Apple is, apparently, still going ahead with the white iPhone 4. And also not obsolete some Verizon purchasers so fast.
Maybe if they go on a little longer refresh schedule, it will match up a little better with carrier subsidies.
On the other hand, since my intent is to skip the next generation, that may mean I wait 2 1/2 years instead of 2 years. Will the phone absorb the drops, etc, that it gets that long?
Maybe if they go on a little longer refresh schedule, it will match up a little better with carrier subsidies.
On the other hand, since my intent is to skip the next generation, that may mean I wait 2 1/2 years instead of 2 years. Will the phone absorb the drops, etc, that it gets that long?
99MustangGTman
Dec 13, 10:08 PM
Almost bought the kit, but when I went to the Apple store and actually saw it in person I couldn't justify paying $120+tax for a piece of plastic. Yeah, yeah yeah, it has bluetooth, charges the phone, and has a gps chip. Its ridiculous to have to pay $100 for an app and $120 for a piece of plastic.
mcarnes
Jul 21, 02:01 PM
Sheesh. This is a 180 from waiting for G5 updates.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento