SpaceKitty
Nov 19, 01:00 AM
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Excellent! Thanks for the reply.
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Excellent! Thanks for the reply.
Multimedia
Aug 2, 05:47 PM
How can we get a hold of that keynote that Macrummors said will cover?If history is any reliable bellwether, Apple Will Post a QT Video Stream of the entire SteveNote By 6PM, Probably Sooner. :)
clibinarius
Apr 20, 09:01 AM
So Apple's not going to upgrade despite securing the parts for three months so Verizon can pay off R&D on the 4? Well, I won't get one like I planned.
This rumor to me isn't believable. When those contracts are up, half of them will be looking for new phones. And if the 5 looks the same as the 4, people might just think its the 4 and get a different phone I think rather than get a perceived year and a half old phone.
I'm most concerned as to what this means for ipod. Are the ipods dead this year?
This rumor to me isn't believable. When those contracts are up, half of them will be looking for new phones. And if the 5 looks the same as the 4, people might just think its the 4 and get a different phone I think rather than get a perceived year and a half old phone.
I'm most concerned as to what this means for ipod. Are the ipods dead this year?
HecubusPro
Sep 11, 04:05 PM
Where are you gouys seeing this?
Go here...
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=925997E8&nclm=MacBookPro
Down towards the bottom of that page for the MBP where you read all about the computer and what it does, there's a bolded subheading that reads "It's Showtime." IMac and Mac Mini are the only other systems that offer a similar description, but their description heading says "Put on a Show."
That is a little odd, since they're basically all describing the same thing. Why would the MBP say "It's Showtime" yet the iMac and Mac Mini descriptions use "Put on a Show?" How long have these read this way? Is this old or new? Does it have something to do with tomorrows' event, or nothing at all?
Hmmm... very intersting.
Reaching? Coincidence? Apple being coy?
Go here...
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=925997E8&nclm=MacBookPro
Down towards the bottom of that page for the MBP where you read all about the computer and what it does, there's a bolded subheading that reads "It's Showtime." IMac and Mac Mini are the only other systems that offer a similar description, but their description heading says "Put on a Show."
That is a little odd, since they're basically all describing the same thing. Why would the MBP say "It's Showtime" yet the iMac and Mac Mini descriptions use "Put on a Show?" How long have these read this way? Is this old or new? Does it have something to do with tomorrows' event, or nothing at all?
Hmmm... very intersting.
Reaching? Coincidence? Apple being coy?
duffman9000
Jul 22, 11:43 AM
Negative? How can this news be negative? Only the most diehard G4 lovers would call this news negative.
vincebio
Nov 22, 12:29 PM
Mr Palm, Apple fan boys:
The perfect smart phone has already been created and is out in the wild: SONY ERICSSON P990.
Wifi, location free, 2 mp camera with flash, keyboard, MP3 player, videos, etc.
yeah. except they forgot to put RAM in it...and the firmware is crap so far..and the battery last about...erm, 24 hours..and they wont support mac..ever!
great phone though!:)
The perfect smart phone has already been created and is out in the wild: SONY ERICSSON P990.
Wifi, location free, 2 mp camera with flash, keyboard, MP3 player, videos, etc.
yeah. except they forgot to put RAM in it...and the firmware is crap so far..and the battery last about...erm, 24 hours..and they wont support mac..ever!
great phone though!:)
Small White Car
Apr 26, 02:32 PM
I'm worried about you.
There's a huge difference between a phone (or at least a device that contains a phone) and a tablet.
But then again, everyone has different tastes. Some can't tell the difference between a Steak and SOS... :eek:
And there's a huge difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 11" Macbook Air.
But they both get counted as laptops, don't they?
And what's your reasoning for why iPods don't get counted here? Because they don't have monthly contracts? How does that make sense? Should we only count iMac sales if they're hooked up to a monthly ISP or something?
There's a huge difference between a phone (or at least a device that contains a phone) and a tablet.
But then again, everyone has different tastes. Some can't tell the difference between a Steak and SOS... :eek:
And there's a huge difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 11" Macbook Air.
But they both get counted as laptops, don't they?
And what's your reasoning for why iPods don't get counted here? Because they don't have monthly contracts? How does that make sense? Should we only count iMac sales if they're hooked up to a monthly ISP or something?
kirk26
Aug 3, 12:17 PM
New thread for a new rumor? Page 1 or 2? :D
Yes, It's about time MacRumors puts rumors on the front page. This has been misguided as of late.
Yes, It's about time MacRumors puts rumors on the front page. This has been misguided as of late.
wclyffe
Dec 10, 01:34 PM
Just a quick post that I thought was noteworthy! Here is a Youtube video showing a guy putting an iPhone WITH A CASE ON IT into the Tomtom Car Kit, and its fine. Granted, its not a full case, but I heard you could have no case at all, so at least it offers some protection to the back of the phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nR46AFeRVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nR46AFeRVU
farmboy
Mar 31, 09:00 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
Ava's Meeshee
Apr 20, 08:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
That doesn't fit in with their UI principles so they won't. Once I too questioned why anyone should expect an OS to be inherently entertaining I had to agree that spending any time making the launch board delight you would be silly and pointless. And why on Earth should a phone have a "desktop"?
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
That doesn't fit in with their UI principles so they won't. Once I too questioned why anyone should expect an OS to be inherently entertaining I had to agree that spending any time making the launch board delight you would be silly and pointless. And why on Earth should a phone have a "desktop"?
freebooter
Sep 11, 01:06 AM
Actually, no, I believe it's more along the lines of an example of success breeding lots and lots and lots of admiring / eager people who want to attend their exclusive product showcases, and their resorting to excluding some people to keep such events from turning into crazed circuses.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
You have a point there. I certainly wouldn't want to attend. But I wasn't saying I would want to. Nor was I saying that any of the eager masses should be able to attend.
The original post by Macrumors implied that this site is shut out of such events. Shutting out representatives sites such as this, which do much to promote Apple products is, I think, to some degree arrogant and perhaps spiteful. This site likes to penetrate Apple's notorious secrecy.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
You have a point there. I certainly wouldn't want to attend. But I wasn't saying I would want to. Nor was I saying that any of the eager masses should be able to attend.
The original post by Macrumors implied that this site is shut out of such events. Shutting out representatives sites such as this, which do much to promote Apple products is, I think, to some degree arrogant and perhaps spiteful. This site likes to penetrate Apple's notorious secrecy.
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
koruki
Apr 18, 03:42 PM
You are funny. Do you know that Samsung spends 10 times more than Apple on R&D?
Well isn't that just embarassing? lol 10 times the money and they can't find SHI*T :mad:
Well isn't that just embarassing? lol 10 times the money and they can't find SHI*T :mad:
Chupa Chupa
Apr 7, 10:54 AM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I see the wannabe lawyers are once again shaking their fists in outrage because Apple's muti-billion dollar competitors like BB, HTC, Moto can't match wits with Apple.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I see the wannabe lawyers are once again shaking their fists in outrage because Apple's muti-billion dollar competitors like BB, HTC, Moto can't match wits with Apple.
Jett0516
Apr 26, 04:49 PM
you guys are still in denial.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
nastebu
Mar 29, 04:17 PM
Who is joking here?
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
I assume the "maybe the radiation will produce higher density batteries" comment was meant as a joke.
As for the rest of what you said, no doubt.
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
I assume the "maybe the radiation will produce higher density batteries" comment was meant as a joke.
As for the rest of what you said, no doubt.
Popeye206
Apr 6, 06:29 PM
Also, it is interesting that Android 2.2 makes up the largest percentage of OS's out there in use.
Can't Android users upgrade to the latest OS? 2.3.3 is the latest phone OS.
Can't Android users upgrade to the latest OS? 2.3.3 is the latest phone OS.
gkarris
May 4, 03:03 PM
But will be greeted with outrage here anyway, just you watch.
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
Al Coholic
Apr 7, 09:58 AM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
iMeowbot
Nov 23, 12:54 PM
o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
The product was called PowerCD (http://guides.macrumors.com/PowerCD).
The product was called PowerCD (http://guides.macrumors.com/PowerCD).
MikeDTyke
Sep 11, 07:59 AM
Must stop rubbing the credit card, its about to melt. Be still my precious, only 28hrs to go.
[EDIT] Rubbing knees now, seem less important to have knees rather than a working credit card.
M. :D
[EDIT] Rubbing knees now, seem less important to have knees rather than a working credit card.
M. :D
AaronEdwards
Apr 26, 03:30 PM
You don't hear about Ferrari and Porsche worrying about their market share. Neither should Apple. Let the other guys squabble in the lower end of the market leaving Apple to continue to deliver a premium product and user experience.
Fiat owns 85% of Ferrari.
Volkswagen owns 49.9% of Porsche.
Fiat owns 85% of Ferrari.
Volkswagen owns 49.9% of Porsche.
ozone
Nov 28, 12:41 PM
I didn't get to your comment before I posted mine; sorry about that. You're absolutely right. I could see artists, students, professors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and countless other professionals who would be elated to have a Mac-based tablet. In fact, the only things I can see it not being useful for is Word and Excel. Even writers could use it to markup their edits using standard proofreading symbols. Much faster than other methods, I'd think; plus much more environmentally friendly because it would alleviate the need for printing out so many hard copies of everything.
You bet Insider! The tablet was intended to be an electronic notebook - literally. There are many professions that could benefit from it - it depends more on your personal approach to work and what you need to do rather than rigidly grouping users into broad categories.
Most of us do not complain about the tablet form factor or even the handwriting recognition - it's pretty good. What bugs most of us is that we're wedded to Windows and all its problems since there is no alternative platform at the moment.:mad:
Here's hoping we see some kind of tablet in the near or far future from Apple... :D
You bet Insider! The tablet was intended to be an electronic notebook - literally. There are many professions that could benefit from it - it depends more on your personal approach to work and what you need to do rather than rigidly grouping users into broad categories.
Most of us do not complain about the tablet form factor or even the handwriting recognition - it's pretty good. What bugs most of us is that we're wedded to Windows and all its problems since there is no alternative platform at the moment.:mad:
Here's hoping we see some kind of tablet in the near or far future from Apple... :D