BC2009
Apr 7, 11:50 PM
As an example; lets say the local BB store got a 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G's in this morning. That is about $830K in sales. And lets say they average sales without the iPad 2 for the same day LY was $500K. Next year that manager would be looking at needing a $1.3M+ to make his goal.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
Evangelion
Jul 15, 10:32 AM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
TheKrillr
Aug 26, 11:33 PM
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
Multimedia
Sep 14, 12:23 PM
i think they're coming up with 2 dual octo-core.......True That. But not until next summer 2007.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 18, 10:14 PM
OK, relating to my earlier posts, after seeing this picture, my expectations of the actual driving and racing in the game are now at a stratospheric level. Having 200 cars with this level of detail is great, but I hope the actual on-track experience has increased as much, if not more. Fingers crossed.... tightly.
{Click to huge-size}
http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7u992.jpg
{Click to huge-size}
http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7u992.jpg
iSamurai
Apr 6, 10:20 AM
I would love to see a 15" laptop with no optical drive, with the specs and price somewhere between the MBA and MBP.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 01:53 PM
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible
What day? Tomorrow, Tuesday or Thursday?
What day? Tomorrow, Tuesday or Thursday?
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
gugy
Aug 11, 03:51 PM
i just want a cell phone that works.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
dornoforpyros
Sep 18, 11:20 PM
I'm still hoping for another sneaky update like they just did with the minis & iMacs, come on Wednesday!
centauratlas
Apr 6, 04:39 PM
You both ignored HOT DOGS! Sheesh, hot dogs rule. The only problem is kids under 6 choking on them unless you cut them right. But that will be fixed in the v3.0 hot dog, they will come pre-sliced.
You busted me.
I am a hamburger fanboi, and will turn into a raving lunatic, foam at the mouth and make up opinions based on nothing all to defend my beloved hamburgers. After all they're lighter, slimmer and tastier than cheesburgers!!!
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
You busted me.
I am a hamburger fanboi, and will turn into a raving lunatic, foam at the mouth and make up opinions based on nothing all to defend my beloved hamburgers. After all they're lighter, slimmer and tastier than cheesburgers!!!
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
Peace
Aug 7, 04:12 PM
I thought an interesting part was more UB apps next week..
Office?
CS2 ?
Office?
CS2 ?
cult hero
Mar 26, 12:32 AM
Can't believe it's anywhere near GM time. Way too many bugs and inconsistencies in behavior. New networking tools in Server have to be implemented now that SMB is being canned - that's not a minor addition. Calling it a release candidate is a stretch, but calling it GM is just plain crazy.
The GPL3 issue with Samba has been around for a LONG time. The announcement was made in 2007. I have some feeling that Apple's been brewing their Samba replacement for a long time. (Although I don't think this is a GM either.)
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem. However, that might just be because coming from a Linux background I probably payed WAY more attention to filesystems than most people.
The GPL3 issue with Samba has been around for a LONG time. The announcement was made in 2007. I have some feeling that Apple's been brewing their Samba replacement for a long time. (Although I don't think this is a GM either.)
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem. However, that might just be because coming from a Linux background I probably payed WAY more attention to filesystems than most people.
samcraig
Apr 25, 04:16 PM
You have a RIGHT? Really? And where does that RIGHT come from? The only right you have is the right to choose another product if you don't like something about the one you're using.
Stop whining. The phone doesn't even track you. As others have pointed out, the data is cell tower based, not GPS. The phone only logs the same kind of information your cell company already logs.
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Stop whining. The phone doesn't even track you. As others have pointed out, the data is cell tower based, not GPS. The phone only logs the same kind of information your cell company already logs.
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
ptysell
Apr 25, 02:24 PM
This is why we need loser pays in the United States.
HecubusPro
Aug 26, 05:57 PM
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
I certainly hope this is true. Of course, if the MBP doesn't have some of the cool features in the MB (upgradable HDD, etc.) it's not going to deter me from getting the merom MPB when it starts shipping. Still, it wouldn't hurt.
I certainly hope this is true. Of course, if the MBP doesn't have some of the cool features in the MB (upgradable HDD, etc.) it's not going to deter me from getting the merom MPB when it starts shipping. Still, it wouldn't hurt.
mwswami
Jul 23, 04:28 PM
Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...
SpinThis!
Apr 12, 02:59 PM
According to the SuperMeet (http://www.supermeet.com/) site, it looks like Apple has a 7pm (pacific) stage presentation.
ctdonath
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
Now it has become a battle of who will get my $500 bucks.
A competitor who fails to show up in time forfeits the match.
Not much of a battle now, is it?
A competitor who fails to show up in time forfeits the match.
Not much of a battle now, is it?
netdog
Aug 11, 02:42 PM
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 09:29 AM
Choosing icons that have taken on universal meanings and thus are similar, is quite a bit different from direct copying, of which we see none.
The closest ones in that group are probably the phones, and yet if you search for a phone icon on the web, or even on cell phone buttons, probably a quarter of them are slanted. Moreover, green is an extremely common color for the primary phone button, which is why Apple chose it themselves.
The use of rounded square icon backgrounds is a bit more damning, but still a style choice. Also, Apple's has a shadow and my Fascinate doesn't have the rounded square on most anyway.
Btw, I have noticed that Apple hasn't tried to claim ownership of the twirling wait symbol, but a lot of us were using that before they were.
I think Apple might have much better luck showing that the Galaxy phone shape greatly resembles the 3GS.
ooh i was just waiting for that magical term 'generic' that we always hear about after another 'copy' comes along. 'Style choices' is a classic, are you a politician?
"Hey look at how well designed that iPhone is I think I'll make a few 'style choices' and copy every single one of their icons..then have my lawyers deem them all generic".
The closest ones in that group are probably the phones, and yet if you search for a phone icon on the web, or even on cell phone buttons, probably a quarter of them are slanted. Moreover, green is an extremely common color for the primary phone button, which is why Apple chose it themselves.
The use of rounded square icon backgrounds is a bit more damning, but still a style choice. Also, Apple's has a shadow and my Fascinate doesn't have the rounded square on most anyway.
Btw, I have noticed that Apple hasn't tried to claim ownership of the twirling wait symbol, but a lot of us were using that before they were.
I think Apple might have much better luck showing that the Galaxy phone shape greatly resembles the 3GS.
ooh i was just waiting for that magical term 'generic' that we always hear about after another 'copy' comes along. 'Style choices' is a classic, are you a politician?
"Hey look at how well designed that iPhone is I think I'll make a few 'style choices' and copy every single one of their icons..then have my lawyers deem them all generic".
iPaf
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
No comments:
Post a Comment