Are both the screens you have better than the one that comes with the iMac? If not, then why not sell one to help pay for the iMac and use the other as a 2nd or main display?
The iMacs aren't very noisy. And since the Mini doesn't have a built-in screen, you can keep it farther away, put it on a shelf, or even in a ventilated cabinet along with other slightly noisy and hot components like external HDDs and AV equipment.
It already had to deal with competitors 1/3rd it's price.
Then it seems to be fighting for a different slice.
Also, moving the power supply into the main case is a DUMB idea because it complicates cooling issues.
Wouldn't that depend on how it was designed? Why assume Apple have made a major design mistake before it's even shipped and people have tested it?
There was really no problem with it being on the outside.
I use an older Mac mini as a backup computer. The power brick and extra cable take up a lot of space. I'm glade they're gone. It makes a much tidier setup, which is good for people who don't have much space or just have an immense disdain for giant power bricks (it really is huge).
I do agree about the price, though. While the new price isn't too much more, it is supposed to be the cheapest way to get a Mac and keeping the price the same would have been nice.
I think it's possible lawyers work on policies a bit like a developer works on a program. So when they need to release something sooner for some reason, other changes might get implemented earlier than planned or needed.
The thing is, developers with great ideas generally don't spend so much time focusing on the negative side of things. They're so focused on their great idea that they'll see if it's viable then get to work. While some people are worried that their app might not get approved and spend their time bitching and moaning on Slashdot about Apple's draconian policies, others are already convinced they won't have any problems, and most of the time they're right.
More likely just fine tuning the policy to keep crap like Flash out while allowing for better uses that were previously excluded. Seems pretty obvious unless you haven't been paying attention to the evolution of their policies or know much about running a business.
But if thinking that Steve Jobs is scared makes you feel better, I guess no one's going to stop you.
Maybe this whole thing is indicitive of something else
That not everyone else is as anti-social or socially inept as many of us here?
I don't think that video calls will become as popular as voice calls or SMS. But people will still use it for all sorts of things, including being a more personal form of communication. People like options when it comes to how they communicate; that's why SMS and email are popular.
Apple hasn't made a mistake here. They've finally taken steps to make video calling easy enough for anyone to use. It might be a while before society completely adapts to the technology, but I don't see any reason why it won't happen.
On the other hand, yeah, what does Apple know about popularising technology, right?
But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Utter BS. I'm sure some will, but what makes you think most will?
They're only full-screen if you click on them. You can close them at any time and be right back where you were. Sounds less intrusive than any of the adds I've encountered in apps before.
I don't like adds, but if it means I can download a few neat puzzle games for free, then that's fine by me. And if I know the add isn't going to take me out of the application or do anything weird, then I might even click on one occasionally.
The big deal is that it's false advertising. Steve said it produces an image greater than the human eye can see, when held at 10-12 inches length but that's not true. The eye can resolve approximately 500 pixels per inch at that distance, and the iPhone is only 320 ppi, so Steve's claim is not true.
What is your source for that? I hope it's not the article, because their source was some guy who emailed them. An expert in his field he may be, but I didn't see any links to scientific tests. They guy doesn't even acknowledge the variability of human vision so we don't if he's talking about averages or someone with better than average sight. So how can you say Job's claim isn't true?
If you're printing solid color, such as text, a decent 300dpi laser printer produces very sharp results. Photographic printers also often use 300dpi as a minimum for quality prints. If you don't think there is anything to it, then why no try printing out a range of images, text, and graphics with various printers at various dpi and see for yourself.
Yes, I don't get the fascination with dual screen tablets. They seem cool and they have some advantages, but I don't think those advantages are anywhere near as large as many people imagine. Kno talk about how people don't like the scrolling and panning (that seemed like a dig at the iPad), but I think that is total BS. Perhaps the people they asked did say that, but people often have no idea what they actually want when it comes to computer interfaces. If the screen was a flexible display that allowed you to carry a small device that unfolded to a large, seamless display, that would be something else. When turning a page on a virtual book is easier than turning a real page, when you have search functionality, and when you can have interactive and contextually-aware TOCs, who cares if you have to turn the page twice as often? It's a bit like how people used to think that web pages should be contained within the "fold". And, of course, that thing is so big and heavy, I'd rather just take a laptop, too.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like radio controlled cars, or something?
You mean abandoning by slowly improving their pro software range?
If the new Mac Minis end up having the same problem, then you will have a good point. But why assume Apple hasn't learnt from its mistake?
Are both the screens you have better than the one that comes with the iMac? If not, then why not sell one to help pay for the iMac and use the other as a 2nd or main display?
The iMacs aren't very noisy. And since the Mini doesn't have a built-in screen, you can keep it farther away, put it on a shelf, or even in a ventilated cabinet along with other slightly noisy and hot components like external HDDs and AV equipment.
It already had to deal with competitors 1/3rd it's price.
Then it seems to be fighting for a different slice.
Also, moving the power supply into the main case is a DUMB idea because it
complicates cooling issues.
Wouldn't that depend on how it was designed? Why assume Apple have made a major design mistake before it's even shipped and people have tested it?
There was really no problem with it being on the outside.
I use an older Mac mini as a backup computer. The power brick and extra cable take up a lot of space. I'm glade they're gone. It makes a much tidier setup, which is good for people who don't have much space or just have an immense disdain for giant power bricks (it really is huge).
I do agree about the price, though. While the new price isn't too much more, it is supposed to be the cheapest way to get a Mac and keeping the price the same would have been nice.
Well, this isn't confirmation, but I guess we'll soon see.
I think it's possible lawyers work on policies a bit like a developer works on a program. So when they need to release something sooner for some reason, other changes might get implemented earlier than planned or needed.
Possibly, but correlation does not equal causality. It's not like they've suddenly let Google or Flash in. It's likely a combination of things.
The thing is, developers with great ideas generally don't spend so much time focusing on the negative side of things. They're so focused on their great idea that they'll see if it's viable then get to work. While some people are worried that their app might not get approved and spend their time bitching and moaning on Slashdot about Apple's draconian policies, others are already convinced they won't have any problems, and most of the time they're right.
More likely just fine tuning the policy to keep crap like Flash out while allowing for better uses that were previously excluded. Seems pretty obvious unless you haven't been paying attention to the evolution of their policies or know much about running a business.
But if thinking that Steve Jobs is scared makes you feel better, I guess no one's going to stop you.
Maybe this whole thing is indicitive of something else
That not everyone else is as anti-social or socially inept as many of us here?
I don't think that video calls will become as popular as voice calls or SMS. But people will still use it for all sorts of things, including being a more personal form of communication. People like options when it comes to how they communicate; that's why SMS and email are popular.
Apple hasn't made a mistake here. They've finally taken steps to make video calling easy enough for anyone to use. It might be a while before society completely adapts to the technology, but I don't see any reason why it won't happen.
On the other hand, yeah, what does Apple know about popularising technology, right?
Sorry, miss-read that. In that case, does it really matter if some developers do?
But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Utter BS. I'm sure some will, but what makes you think most will?
They're only full-screen if you click on them. You can close them at any time and be right back where you were. Sounds less intrusive than any of the adds I've encountered in apps before.
I don't like adds, but if it means I can download a few neat puzzle games for free, then that's fine by me. And if I know the add isn't going to take me out of the application or do anything weird, then I might even click on one occasionally.
You think if Vodafone got a bunch of iPads and was selling them at $1 on a 5 year plan that apple wouldn't shit itself?
As long as Vodafone paid Apple what they agreed upon, I doubt Apple would care. Why would they?
The security breach was with AT&T, because it was on their servers and only affected their customers.
The big deal is that it's false advertising. Steve said it produces an image greater than the human eye can see, when held at 10-12 inches length but that's not true. The eye can resolve approximately 500 pixels per inch at that distance, and the iPhone is only 320 ppi, so Steve's claim is not true.
What is your source for that? I hope it's not the article, because their source was some guy who emailed them. An expert in his field he may be, but I didn't see any links to scientific tests. They guy doesn't even acknowledge the variability of human vision so we don't if he's talking about averages or someone with better than average sight. So how can you say Job's claim isn't true?
If you're printing solid color, such as text, a decent 300dpi laser printer produces very sharp results. Photographic printers also often use 300dpi as a minimum for quality prints. If you don't think there is anything to it, then why no try printing out a range of images, text, and graphics with various printers at various dpi and see for yourself.
I was under the impression that part of the problem is that the telecos/ISPs aren't buying enough international bandwidth.
Why was that a bad decision, exactly?
Kind of worked out well for them -- how doubling the size also made it as high a PPI as they'll ever need. Perhaps you meant to say "good"?
Not really. People would be saying the OS is great (although closed), but that the device is too big and heavy.
Yes, I don't get the fascination with dual screen tablets. They seem cool and they have some advantages, but I don't think those advantages are anywhere near as large as many people imagine. Kno talk about how people don't like the scrolling and panning (that seemed like a dig at the iPad), but I think that is total BS. Perhaps the people they asked did say that, but people often have no idea what they actually want when it comes to computer interfaces. If the screen was a flexible display that allowed you to carry a small device that unfolded to a large, seamless display, that would be something else. When turning a page on a virtual book is easier than turning a real page, when you have search functionality, and when you can have interactive and contextually-aware TOCs, who cares if you have to turn the page twice as often? It's a bit like how people used to think that web pages should be contained within the "fold". And, of course, that thing is so big and heavy, I'd rather just take a laptop, too.
...but we don't go around trying to treat people for love addiction.
Maybe we should! Addiction is addiction. Whether a particular person's addiction is enough of a problem to be worth intervention is another story.
Software for these new phones will not run properly, if at all on the old ones.
What makes you say that? You don't think Apple has built iPhone OS APIs to take such things into account?