trrosen
Apr 17, 04:20 AM
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
kvizzel
Apr 12, 04:11 PM
I wonder why everywhere I go ATT is sold out...
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
Popeye206
May 2, 03:15 PM
Not sure if this has been asked... but does it blend? :p
robbieduncan
Mar 29, 04:29 PM
This thread is a bit like what happened to me on the way home: a car crash!
more...
whoodie
Mar 19, 12:09 PM
I got in line at Knox at roughly 5am. At 7:30 an apple employee came out to hand out tickets. He got 15 people down the line and then said he was out. I was about 20-30th in line. Sounds like we all got fed a line of BS when we were told they held all shipments from this week for Sat. morning.
Azathoth
Mar 24, 09:09 AM
LOL nice one there :P however the army might be able to overlook water damage in dry areas like Afghanistan
Dust is an equally big problem. MBPs are just-about up to the task of day-to-day office use (we have 4-5 MBP at work) - logic board fail if they smell water near the keyboard. All HW ports are open. Al Cases prone to warpage...
But for all we know it's a tour to look at UI concepts for 'soldier of the future' type applications.
Dust is an equally big problem. MBPs are just-about up to the task of day-to-day office use (we have 4-5 MBP at work) - logic board fail if they smell water near the keyboard. All HW ports are open. Al Cases prone to warpage...
But for all we know it's a tour to look at UI concepts for 'soldier of the future' type applications.
more...
BornAgainMac
Apr 14, 01:24 PM
He is a spy. That will promote it to page 1 for all those page 2 people.
westonharvey
Sep 25, 10:40 AM
My friend keeps taunting me with his Core 2 Duo based HP notbook. Even "Xtreme Notebooks" has a Core 2 Duo model.
This sucks.
This sucks.
more...
Yannick
Sep 27, 09:54 AM
I checked the update pace for Mac OS X 10.4.
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
garybUK
Mar 21, 09:45 AM
Not a plug... but.... petrolprices.com tells me what the prices are around my post code.
Friday's were: 128.9p for 95RON Unleaded and 131.9p for 98/99RON (Which I use).
Friday's were: 128.9p for 95RON Unleaded and 131.9p for 98/99RON (Which I use).
more...
kingdonk
Feb 28, 08:17 PM
more
bretm
Apr 16, 03:03 PM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
more...
tobyg
Sep 19, 04:29 PM
You can't boot XP from CD on a Mac. You can't you can't you can't. The Mac boots using EFI, which XP doesn't support.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
Incorrect information. Move along.
Mac Pro already contained the legacy bios emulation built into the EFI (bootcamp has nothing to do with this) from the factory. You can boot directly to a XP CD without loading bootcamp. Bootcamp is a collection of drivers.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
Incorrect information. Move along.
Mac Pro already contained the legacy bios emulation built into the EFI (bootcamp has nothing to do with this) from the factory. You can boot directly to a XP CD without loading bootcamp. Bootcamp is a collection of drivers.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 14, 02:36 PM
How much does a job like this pay? Looks like Microsoft has a Data Center Manager position open. Maybe I'll apply. How hard can it be?
more...
MacFly123
Feb 18, 06:44 PM
How much money round that table??!!
That's a lot of money in one room! :eek::eek:
Haha, that's what I was thinking! :D Very powerful and influential people around that table. Kind of odd and surreal! They are just normal people.
He doesn't look anywhere near as bad as he did in those "genuine" photographs from a certain news organisation. :rolleyes:
I can't seem to find those pics. Did they publish them? Do you have a link?
Notice Steve is the only guy without wine?
He is undergoing treatment for cancer.
What is so strange about him not drinking alcohol?
:confused:
Actually, there are just two guys with Wine in the whole room, they all have water or something like that... (Check out the big flickr pic from the previous poster)
Yes it looks like there are other people with water but does Steve drink? I don't think he does. :confused:
Everyone is dressed up but Steve....awesome.
He did wear a tux to the oscars at least.
Ya it was weird seeing Steve in a tux or anything but his standard uniform haha! :D
I would honestly love to see his closet lol! Probably like Earnest... Nothing but black turtle necks, Levis jeans, and NewBalance sneakers haha! :p
[SIZE=1]Get better for the sake of mankind, mr jobs!
No kidding! Please Steve! :(
Good to see that's Steve is still well enough to attend such things. Still very thin mind you.
Yes, for sure!
That's a lot of money in one room! :eek::eek:
Haha, that's what I was thinking! :D Very powerful and influential people around that table. Kind of odd and surreal! They are just normal people.
He doesn't look anywhere near as bad as he did in those "genuine" photographs from a certain news organisation. :rolleyes:
I can't seem to find those pics. Did they publish them? Do you have a link?
Notice Steve is the only guy without wine?
He is undergoing treatment for cancer.
What is so strange about him not drinking alcohol?
:confused:
Actually, there are just two guys with Wine in the whole room, they all have water or something like that... (Check out the big flickr pic from the previous poster)
Yes it looks like there are other people with water but does Steve drink? I don't think he does. :confused:
Everyone is dressed up but Steve....awesome.
He did wear a tux to the oscars at least.
Ya it was weird seeing Steve in a tux or anything but his standard uniform haha! :D
I would honestly love to see his closet lol! Probably like Earnest... Nothing but black turtle necks, Levis jeans, and NewBalance sneakers haha! :p
[SIZE=1]Get better for the sake of mankind, mr jobs!
No kidding! Please Steve! :(
Good to see that's Steve is still well enough to attend such things. Still very thin mind you.
Yes, for sure!
Ihatefall
Nov 14, 10:06 PM
The RFID chip will be a close range chip only. I had one in my Japanese cell phone when I lived there. It was called SUICA in the Tokyo area (its called different things else where in Japan). There was also a card just for riding the train by the same name. Regardless, it was awesome to have because Japanese ATMs aren't alway 24 hours, might banks closed at 9pm for example and that country isn't really into credit cards. So I always kept between 2000 to 10000 yen on it ($20-$100 USD), that way I could always grab a train home, get a drink or a snack if I needed it. Any place within a 10 walk of the station took the it, including vending machines.
It was really really handy! got me home the one time I lost my wallet!:)
I welcome it
It was really really handy! got me home the one time I lost my wallet!:)
I welcome it
more...
firestarter
May 4, 12:55 AM
How do you know that that Sony prototype didn't come about as a result from work at UDC (funded by DARPA)?
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
Steve121178
Apr 13, 10:31 AM
No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.
People like you make me laugh. Office 2011 is great, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Sure, there are alternatives to Office which people may prefer, but Office 2011 is great. Complete and utter fact.
People like you make me laugh. Office 2011 is great, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Sure, there are alternatives to Office which people may prefer, but Office 2011 is great. Complete and utter fact.
OdduWon
Oct 16, 11:14 PM
picture the 80gb ipod, in its current form factor.... that slides down like the LG Chocolate does, to expose a full qwerty keyboard... sweet
yeah this is why chocolate came out when it did because they thought the Telepod would look like this so they pushed theirs on to the market first . if they waited chocolate would not have been so sucessful.
yeah this is why chocolate came out when it did because they thought the Telepod would look like this so they pushed theirs on to the market first . if they waited chocolate would not have been so sucessful.
BRLawyer
Sep 27, 04:07 PM
I just hope Apple have fixed a lot of ridiculous little problems with Cocoa and the Task Switcher, etc. that they introduced with 10.4.7. I'm tired of quitting one application in Task Switcher and seeing another application's name in the menu bar while it's quitting.
Yep, this happens with me too...nothing grave but annoying..
Yep, this happens with me too...nothing grave but annoying..
cmaier
Mar 25, 03:07 PM
While reading these pages, what amazes me is that many people keep calling KODAK a patent troll.
YET KODAK STILL MAKES DIGITAL CAMERAS AND PRINTERS BASED ON THESE PATENTS!
really? which printer or camera uses it? It should be marked with the patent number if it does.
Earth to MacRumors members... APPLE WILL LOSE TOO MOST LIKELY.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
YET KODAK STILL MAKES DIGITAL CAMERAS AND PRINTERS BASED ON THESE PATENTS!
really? which printer or camera uses it? It should be marked with the patent number if it does.
Earth to MacRumors members... APPLE WILL LOSE TOO MOST LIKELY.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
lazyrighteye
Oct 27, 01:59 PM
As much as I would like to have .Mac and be able to sync my data, I still can't justify $99 for 1gb of web storage. Hopefully the Apple/Google alliance has some impact regarding the pricing of Apple's web services.
I'm glad I have Gmail and its 2.309843598745398745987345gb of storage!:D
I'm hoping the acquisition of that data center results in more storage for .Mac users... at some point in the near future (doubtful).
I have been a .Mac user now for 4 years. The storage limitations are embarrassing. All I use it for is Syncing between multiple Macs - which is handy but hardly a justification for the $99 price of admission.
I'm glad I have Gmail and its 2.309843598745398745987345gb of storage!:D
I'm hoping the acquisition of that data center results in more storage for .Mac users... at some point in the near future (doubtful).
I have been a .Mac user now for 4 years. The storage limitations are embarrassing. All I use it for is Syncing between multiple Macs - which is handy but hardly a justification for the $99 price of admission.
macduke
Mar 13, 10:31 AM
No problems here on AT&T iPhone 4 iOS 4.3.
This is a Microsoft level problem, Apple! You aren't noobs. Get it right!
This is a Microsoft level problem, Apple! You aren't noobs. Get it right!
gr8tfly
Mar 30, 10:48 PM
It's done from within XCode, not iTunes.