rotobadger
Mar 30, 12:18 PM
The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name....yet.
You bring up a good point though. "App" and "Store" existed long before it (allegedly) belonged to Apple. Apple spent a lot of money making "AppStore" a recognizable name.
BurgerStore is nothing now. But if a company spends millions of dollars making it valuable, shouldn't they own it?
You bring up a good point though. "App" and "Store" existed long before it (allegedly) belonged to Apple. Apple spent a lot of money making "AppStore" a recognizable name.
BurgerStore is nothing now. But if a company spends millions of dollars making it valuable, shouldn't they own it?
nummy1
Oct 4, 11:04 PM
What is the Resolution of these movie files?... and what kind of sound is outputted?... If i spend as much money as I would on a DVD i want the same quality...
dkaff
Apr 4, 12:41 PM
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
thworple
Oct 27, 09:52 AM
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
Hmmmm, so what you're saying is that a quiet protest (which as an eye-witness I can say this was!!) about a subject they feel strongly about isn't allowed at certain conventions because of the political orientation of the people in charge.
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
Hmmmm, so what you're saying is that a quiet protest (which as an eye-witness I can say this was!!) about a subject they feel strongly about isn't allowed at certain conventions because of the political orientation of the people in charge.
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
dukebound85
Apr 25, 02:04 AM
Uh no I didn't. I just interpreted the law. As someone implied earlier, this could all be a ruse. I might not have done anything I said in this thread. No one here can know 100% for sure, because you did not witness the event I claim occurred. That simple fact, in addition to any record searching anyone did without a warrant would be an invasion of privacy would get anything I say in this thread thrown out of court faster than you could blink.
-Don
OP, I do find it amusing you think you know the intricacies of the law just because your uncle is a judge
Until you have the education/training yourself, I would not be so confident in your opinions...especially as one who has not even finished hs
I also advise you to stop digging yourself in a hole. I feel you are rapidly losing any credibility/respect that many long time posters previously had of you due to this very, and I mean very childish and selfish mindset you are exhibiting in this thread
-Don
OP, I do find it amusing you think you know the intricacies of the law just because your uncle is a judge
Until you have the education/training yourself, I would not be so confident in your opinions...especially as one who has not even finished hs
I also advise you to stop digging yourself in a hole. I feel you are rapidly losing any credibility/respect that many long time posters previously had of you due to this very, and I mean very childish and selfish mindset you are exhibiting in this thread
thejadedmonkey
Sep 5, 04:21 PM
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
Seeing that I just got Batman Begins for $5 from Blockbuster, I think $4.99 to rent it a bit extreme.
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
Seeing that I just got Batman Begins for $5 from Blockbuster, I think $4.99 to rent it a bit extreme.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
ikir
Apr 19, 08:20 AM
Apple is pathetic.
Sure, many companies copy Apple products, sometimes apple face lawsuit for incredible stupid reasons... and you blame them when they react?
Samsung galaxy is pretty similiar to iPhone 3GS and even it is user interface... i think Apple should ignore it but i can understand it. As for "windows" many users think Microsoft were the first os to use them... because people easily forgot things... in the end it is much more easy to copy as 90% of company do (in general, not from apple but it happens often).
Sure, many companies copy Apple products, sometimes apple face lawsuit for incredible stupid reasons... and you blame them when they react?
Samsung galaxy is pretty similiar to iPhone 3GS and even it is user interface... i think Apple should ignore it but i can understand it. As for "windows" many users think Microsoft were the first os to use them... because people easily forgot things... in the end it is much more easy to copy as 90% of company do (in general, not from apple but it happens often).
bloodycape
Aug 24, 06:08 PM
2) Creative exits the player business because it will be squeezed by the iPod and Zune from above, and Sandisk and iRiver from below. The field will just be too crowded with Zune. Because no matter how much money Zune will lose in the first few years, Microsoft will no doubt keep it afloat rather than cede defeat in this space. That might help Zune to take away some share away from the iPod eventually, but not before Zune eats the bulk of Creative's and Sandisk's share first. Creative has to be thinking about whether continuing to pour R&D and marketing into players is worth it with Microsoft competing directly against them. My guess it they'll bail as soon as they are able.
At the moment Sandisk is ahead of Creative in terms of profit and market shares because since Sandisk makes their own flash drives they can sell larger capacity drives at a lower price hence the 8gig Sansa being the same price as many 4gig players. And in Korea and Japan iRiver if I am not mistaken is doing better than creative because they have some items there that are actually meeting the demand of their consumers i.e. pocket dictionaries that play games, support audio and video. Yet Creative still enough made some profits in Q1 and Q2 of 2006.
At the moment Sandisk is ahead of Creative in terms of profit and market shares because since Sandisk makes their own flash drives they can sell larger capacity drives at a lower price hence the 8gig Sansa being the same price as many 4gig players. And in Korea and Japan iRiver if I am not mistaken is doing better than creative because they have some items there that are actually meeting the demand of their consumers i.e. pocket dictionaries that play games, support audio and video. Yet Creative still enough made some profits in Q1 and Q2 of 2006.
EagerDragon
Sep 14, 07:27 PM
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
I seem to remember something like a year ago that they were changing the entire aperture development team. Could this be a radical departure from the old Aperture?
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
I seem to remember something like a year ago that they were changing the entire aperture development team. Could this be a radical departure from the old Aperture?
JeffDM
Sep 17, 12:02 PM
(by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.
If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.
That would make the phone way too large. Unfortunately, the market has shifted to smaller phones such that they are harder to use than necessary, but that makes them easier to carry. A phone that's a little larger than a nano might be accepted, something that's as large as the 5G probably won't, that would make it the largest phone on the market.
Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.
If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.
That would make the phone way too large. Unfortunately, the market has shifted to smaller phones such that they are harder to use than necessary, but that makes them easier to carry. A phone that's a little larger than a nano might be accepted, something that's as large as the 5G probably won't, that would make it the largest phone on the market.
JoshH
Aug 28, 03:26 PM
Come on Apple... open the doors. Let's not be too far behind, here...
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 22, 03:25 PM
As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
alvindarkness
Apr 11, 05:08 AM
Lucky its not Sony. Those that exposed it would be in a never ending court case, and everyone's IP that visited macrumors would be subpoenaed by a federal judge.
pre10c
Apr 20, 10:09 AM
everyone is fine with sharing their personal info on facebook but a device that remembers where it has been?omg no!! anyway there aint a probleme as long as you dont lose your pc or iphone right?
guywithabike
Aug 31, 12:58 PM
gugy-
You aren't a graphics professional, I take it.
Glossy screens are, indeed, typically better than the "diffused" screens. Diffused screens prevent glare by adding a layer of diffusing material that scatters light to avoid the "mirror" effect. The problem with this is that it also scatters the light coming from the monitor. This reduces color contrast and vibrancy greatly. Put a diffused and glossy MacBook Pro next to each other. The difference is immediately obvious.
With glossy screens, the image from the monitor isn't diffused, which gives you a virtually wider gamut with much better color contrast and quality. Of course, because it's glossy, you'll have to make sure your environmental lighting doesn't interfere with it.
So, for instance, if you're a filmmaker with a PowerBook for on-site video editing, you might want a diffused screen if you do a lot of outdoor work. If you're a designer that uses a desktop screen in a controlled studio/office environment, you'll want a glossy screen.
Of course, regardless of coating, LCDs have a much wider color gamut than print, so it's really not that important whether or not your screen is glossy or diffused, as long as it's a quality monitor if you're a print designer. For true precision color work, DTP pros go with insane monitors that would make your wallet cry. Most of those screens have glossy coatings. TV work relies on insanely expensive "reference" monitors for emulating the "average" TV with precision.
You aren't a graphics professional, I take it.
Glossy screens are, indeed, typically better than the "diffused" screens. Diffused screens prevent glare by adding a layer of diffusing material that scatters light to avoid the "mirror" effect. The problem with this is that it also scatters the light coming from the monitor. This reduces color contrast and vibrancy greatly. Put a diffused and glossy MacBook Pro next to each other. The difference is immediately obvious.
With glossy screens, the image from the monitor isn't diffused, which gives you a virtually wider gamut with much better color contrast and quality. Of course, because it's glossy, you'll have to make sure your environmental lighting doesn't interfere with it.
So, for instance, if you're a filmmaker with a PowerBook for on-site video editing, you might want a diffused screen if you do a lot of outdoor work. If you're a designer that uses a desktop screen in a controlled studio/office environment, you'll want a glossy screen.
Of course, regardless of coating, LCDs have a much wider color gamut than print, so it's really not that important whether or not your screen is glossy or diffused, as long as it's a quality monitor if you're a print designer. For true precision color work, DTP pros go with insane monitors that would make your wallet cry. Most of those screens have glossy coatings. TV work relies on insanely expensive "reference" monitors for emulating the "average" TV with precision.
bassfingers
Apr 22, 10:21 AM
I am so excited about whatever this is. So long as its more successful than game center...
rockets21
Mar 23, 04:21 PM
I live in Nevada and honestly the cops spend more time Giving tickets out then doing real police work. Since the state has been financial hardship, The cops are out drumming up business. Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue. Apple dont bend to the pressure, These apps do not break any rules for the App store and if you start letting the Government decide what should and shouldnt be, is the day I finally Jailbreak my Iphone.
MacRumors
Sep 12, 02:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple today announced an update to its full-sized iPod line (http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html). Among the enhancements are new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, Pac Man, Tetris, Texas Holdem, Vortex, and Zuma), Gapless playback (#1 request according to Jobs), a 60% brighter display, and longer battery life. The new iPod is available immediately in the following models:
30 GB: $249
-Black or White
-14 hr music playback, 4 hr slideshow, 3.5 hr video
80 GB: $349
-Black or White
-20 hr music playback, 6 hr slideshow, 6.5 hr video
Apple today announced an update to its full-sized iPod line (http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html). Among the enhancements are new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, Pac Man, Tetris, Texas Holdem, Vortex, and Zuma), Gapless playback (#1 request according to Jobs), a 60% brighter display, and longer battery life. The new iPod is available immediately in the following models:
30 GB: $249
-Black or White
-14 hr music playback, 4 hr slideshow, 3.5 hr video
80 GB: $349
-Black or White
-20 hr music playback, 6 hr slideshow, 6.5 hr video
Kaibelf
Apr 20, 11:45 AM
So how would I go about encrypting this backup file on my Mac?
It's an option in iTunes, right on the main sync page when you choose your device. Nothing obscure.
It's an option in iTunes, right on the main sync page when you choose your device. Nothing obscure.
iMikeT
Oct 12, 09:46 PM
I have to pay an extra $10 and that goes where?
Jimmieboy
Sep 14, 01:12 AM
sorry but it's stainless steel, has a nice weight to it, the slider action is awesome (slides out on bearings made by BMW or Benz), plays AAC, so I can use any iTunes song for my Alarm or Ringtone or just media as well as radio reception built in, has bluetooth, not to mention a pretty kick ass golf game. Oh yeah, and it isn't a piece of junk like all those Moto Razrs.
Sure it's a nice phone. My dad had it for about a week. He ended up returning it beacuse of the really bad battery life. It lasted not even a day. He's on his phone a large portion of the day because he owns a business. He returned it and ended up getting some other nokia can't remmebr the number.
Sure it's a nice phone. My dad had it for about a week. He ended up returning it beacuse of the really bad battery life. It lasted not even a day. He's on his phone a large portion of the day because he owns a business. He returned it and ended up getting some other nokia can't remmebr the number.
zacman
Mar 29, 11:43 AM
iOS is losing marketshare for over 2 years now, so nothing really new there in that prediction. WP7 devices are available unlocked in Europe for around 250� (Omnia 7 16 GB, 19% VAT included) which is on par with the iPod touch (8GB, 210 �, 19% VAT included).
So overall WP7 will grow really fast especially when Nokia will release their phones.
So overall WP7 will grow really fast especially when Nokia will release their phones.
kny3twalker
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.