zin
Apr 5, 04:05 PM
I wanted to download this but it's not available from my country's App Store.
The Scotsman
Jan 12, 06:36 PM
Look, people--
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
I agree with your predictions but I do not think it will be got with the 1st gen iPhone. iPod was not good until a range started and I think the phone will be the same.
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
I agree with your predictions but I do not think it will be got with the 1st gen iPhone. iPod was not good until a range started and I think the phone will be the same.
micahR
Nov 8, 02:01 PM
I got mine earlier today too, it's very good indeed. :)
I'm worried about getting banned for getting it (a few hours) early.
I'm worried about getting banned for getting it (a few hours) early.
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 08:06 AM
Think they will close the store this morning to update the laptop line??? or will they do it when they close the store during the live session?
more...
ThaDoggg
May 4, 09:43 AM
Oh boy do I ever love these Apple commercials. Great marketing team.
Highland
Aug 2, 08:04 PM
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
more...
Rocksaurus
Oct 28, 06:30 PM
Yes, big parts of it come from the BSD world.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
BRLawyer
Sep 12, 04:41 AM
So, let me see...for those of us NOT living in the US, what do we have?
Movie Store - NOT available (downloading movies is not my cup of tea anyway);
Streaming device for movies bought in the iTMS - NOT available as well
New Nanos with SAME capacity?? - No, thanks...
I was going to receive a (female) friend tonight, but she postponed for tomorrow...so this means I will have instead a big "yawning" session tonight at Apple news/rumor sites, with few things applicable to people outside of the US...move along, citizens... :(
Movie Store - NOT available (downloading movies is not my cup of tea anyway);
Streaming device for movies bought in the iTMS - NOT available as well
New Nanos with SAME capacity?? - No, thanks...
I was going to receive a (female) friend tonight, but she postponed for tomorrow...so this means I will have instead a big "yawning" session tonight at Apple news/rumor sites, with few things applicable to people outside of the US...move along, citizens... :(
more...
RobBookPro
Apr 16, 12:14 AM
Everyone keeps saying that aluminum will mess with the signal. But what I'm wondering about is how will the iPad 3G will deal with that? Is 3G iPad going to look different than Wifi model thats currently out?
Have you not looked at the pictures on Apples website? Big black stripe?
Have you not looked at the pictures on Apples website? Big black stripe?
ct2k7
Apr 17, 08:15 PM
Anyone to comment on the iPhone pics at engadget.com
more...
bjdku
Oct 3, 03:50 PM
...I'd like The Steve to walk on stage and announce that they absolutely will not release certain products, so the ones that keep coming up as rumours over and over again that stand no chance of ever seeing the light of day (Apple phone, I'm looking at you) stop getting taken seriously, and the rumour sites that have promoted the idea finally get egg on their faces.
That's the thing at the moment.
<trimmed...>
I understand what you are saying, but man, it was a tough read. Did anyone else have a hard time?
Oh, and I don't agree with your assertions.
That's the thing at the moment.
<trimmed...>
I understand what you are saying, but man, it was a tough read. Did anyone else have a hard time?
Oh, and I don't agree with your assertions.
caspersoong
Apr 26, 06:47 AM
I think it must be a prototype. I won't get too excited though.
more...
arn
Jan 6, 08:51 PM
Could the Arn make sure we don't see advertisements for the new iPhone/iTV/MacWhatever/iStuff thingies when we reach this page?
done.
just some generic apple ads there now.
arn
done.
just some generic apple ads there now.
arn
twoodcc
May 3, 03:50 PM
Great you have it working now and hopefully it will stay up a week.
well it's not looking very good. it should have posted a bigadv unit by now. and my number of gpu units are looking lower - which means that something crashed. man it only had 12 hours left on the bigadv unit when i left, and now nothing. it was folding way at around 34:30 per frame inside a VM.
well it's not looking very good. it should have posted a bigadv unit by now. and my number of gpu units are looking lower - which means that something crashed. man it only had 12 hours left on the bigadv unit when i left, and now nothing. it was folding way at around 34:30 per frame inside a VM.
more...
MattSepeta
Jul 27, 12:10 PM
This is why I do not see "electric cars" gaining mainstream popularity any time soon.
iMikeT
Oct 29, 01:45 AM
I'm glad that Apple did this.
I'm tired of the people who argue that Mac OS X should be like Windoze. That is, to be able to install Mac OS X on any system other than a Macintosh.
Good job Apple.
I'm tired of the people who argue that Mac OS X should be like Windoze. That is, to be able to install Mac OS X on any system other than a Macintosh.
Good job Apple.
more...
Xenc
Apr 5, 05:55 PM
Looks good. Is there an ad-free version?
SciFrog
Apr 3, 07:15 PM
Looks like your production has started again, great. Also Designed is back after a little hiatus, and Lizardking has crunched a bigadv again after a long pause too, and Whiterabbit production is as high as ever. We could be raking in some serious numbers this week :eek:
If Apple release 12 cores, I might splurge if the team is cranking too!
If Apple release 12 cores, I might splurge if the team is cranking too!
chrmjenkins
Apr 15, 03:44 PM
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
zombitronic
Oct 6, 04:47 PM
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 12:43 PM
The problem with the US is out transportation system was never laid out for a good mass transit. We have massive urban sprawl and no real way solve that problem. Add in the fact that rail systems were never designed into the system so retrofitting them is will be very costly and very difficult to do.
We have plenty of rail, and we are building more. The problem is that people don't ride it. Just as we have plenty of fuel efficient cars, and more are coming to market - but people are still buying SUVs. We [rightly] blame oil companies for being grasping and short-sighted. But consumers also bear much of the blame.
As for the mass eletric cars I think you pass over my point about how most of them will be charged at night during off peak hours which means for the most part the grid can take a a huge number of them before we will start having a real issue.
It still would not even begin to handle the strain generated by millions of new electric cars suddenly appearing in driveways across America. Large-scale adoption of electric cars would just make coal and oil get burned faster by power companies. Yes, power plants are more efficient than most cars in producing energy. But we are still burning fossil fuels and polluting. Also, has anyone done a study to compare the true efficiency of the best full electrics vs an efficient, equivalent diesel or gas car? For example, given an identical amount of oil, which vehicle uses it more efficiently? A diesel hatchback or an electric that gets it's juice from a power plant burning oil? I'd be curious to see the results. I'm not trying to sound skeptical - I just don't know what the comparison would reveal.
We need something to replace the use of gas. Hybrids I will say are a great thing to bridge between our combustion engine and what ever is next. Things like the volt I think are the best examples of the bridge because we just need to replace the power generator and that is fairly easy to do compared to having to figure out some other type of engine to move the car. We have electric motors that we can advance for moving.
GM's European arm Opel created a concept diesel series hybrid, the stupidly named Flextreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Flextreme), which promises dramatically improved fuel economy over the Volt. I just feel like any series hybrid that uses a gasoline engine is a foolishly crippled piece of technology when appropriate diesels are available and would deliver far superior fuel economy.
Reducing our usage of fuel I would argue is a dead end tech. All it will do is delay the problem but not solve it. Hybrids bridge us to the solution.
Reducing our fuel consumption is not a solution, but it is the first crucial step in bridging the gap between fossil fuels and whatever alternative we develop. We need time to transition, and if everyone practices conservation we buy more time to transition.
As yet, no hybrids on the market outperform straight diesel engined cars consistently, so the hybrid concept is still very much in its infancy. I have yet to be convinced, especially with the cost and [lack of efficiency] of the battery packs. They may ultimately meet expectations, but they haven't yet.
We have plenty of rail, and we are building more. The problem is that people don't ride it. Just as we have plenty of fuel efficient cars, and more are coming to market - but people are still buying SUVs. We [rightly] blame oil companies for being grasping and short-sighted. But consumers also bear much of the blame.
As for the mass eletric cars I think you pass over my point about how most of them will be charged at night during off peak hours which means for the most part the grid can take a a huge number of them before we will start having a real issue.
It still would not even begin to handle the strain generated by millions of new electric cars suddenly appearing in driveways across America. Large-scale adoption of electric cars would just make coal and oil get burned faster by power companies. Yes, power plants are more efficient than most cars in producing energy. But we are still burning fossil fuels and polluting. Also, has anyone done a study to compare the true efficiency of the best full electrics vs an efficient, equivalent diesel or gas car? For example, given an identical amount of oil, which vehicle uses it more efficiently? A diesel hatchback or an electric that gets it's juice from a power plant burning oil? I'd be curious to see the results. I'm not trying to sound skeptical - I just don't know what the comparison would reveal.
We need something to replace the use of gas. Hybrids I will say are a great thing to bridge between our combustion engine and what ever is next. Things like the volt I think are the best examples of the bridge because we just need to replace the power generator and that is fairly easy to do compared to having to figure out some other type of engine to move the car. We have electric motors that we can advance for moving.
GM's European arm Opel created a concept diesel series hybrid, the stupidly named Flextreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Flextreme), which promises dramatically improved fuel economy over the Volt. I just feel like any series hybrid that uses a gasoline engine is a foolishly crippled piece of technology when appropriate diesels are available and would deliver far superior fuel economy.
Reducing our usage of fuel I would argue is a dead end tech. All it will do is delay the problem but not solve it. Hybrids bridge us to the solution.
Reducing our fuel consumption is not a solution, but it is the first crucial step in bridging the gap between fossil fuels and whatever alternative we develop. We need time to transition, and if everyone practices conservation we buy more time to transition.
As yet, no hybrids on the market outperform straight diesel engined cars consistently, so the hybrid concept is still very much in its infancy. I have yet to be convinced, especially with the cost and [lack of efficiency] of the battery packs. They may ultimately meet expectations, but they haven't yet.
esaleris
Nov 16, 01:06 PM
There is absolutely no, no, no way that Intel did not enter a contractual agreement with Apple that explicitly prohibits or deters Apple from using AMD's competitive products. Intel and Apple's partnership - not the traditional buyer-seller - extends into R&D and other considerable investments. Additionally, Apple is too small of a company to be able to leverage their volume in a way that would free them from such an agreement. Bottom line? We won't see an AMD in Apple for another 2-3 years, if it were to happen at all.
jdminpdx
Mar 17, 01:16 PM
The OP...
What a class act!:rolleyes:
What a class act!:rolleyes:
dontmatter
Oct 22, 01:19 PM
Of course the point is, they aren't doing these or any or things with the money. It's been accumulating steadily for nearly ten years, and is really building up quickly now. I don't think any of us "grumpy" stockholders would be complaining if Apple was doing something worthwhile with it. Dividends, BTW, are a message from a company to stockholders that they don't have to sell to realize a benefit from owning shares. They are good for improving the long term stability of the stock.
I would love for apple to use 10 billion to innovate fantastically, enter new markets, go green, and more. I don't think it's going to happen- the purpose of 10 billion in the bank for apple is having 10 billion in the bank. Apple's expertise is in taking big risks (at least large for a compnay of their size), a good number of which pay off very, very well. But people- investors, CEOs, are risk adverse, and a huge pile of cash to operate on, so big they can operate and continue to invest in risky and exciting products, mitigates their risks. For apple, a pile of money might actually be worth more than investing that money at a high rate of return.
I would love for apple to use 10 billion to innovate fantastically, enter new markets, go green, and more. I don't think it's going to happen- the purpose of 10 billion in the bank for apple is having 10 billion in the bank. Apple's expertise is in taking big risks (at least large for a compnay of their size), a good number of which pay off very, very well. But people- investors, CEOs, are risk adverse, and a huge pile of cash to operate on, so big they can operate and continue to invest in risky and exciting products, mitigates their risks. For apple, a pile of money might actually be worth more than investing that money at a high rate of return.