Goes to pre-order only when I try to buy one right now, at least in the UK.
It seems Best Buy has them, for in store pickup only for $799 - which is more expensive than 5 of the 6 iPad 2 models. Only the 64GB 3G model is more (at $829).
Of course they're not magic. They use the term in their marketing, but if you know what's inside you know what they use to actually build these things.
Of *course* it's the point that you can't show me an equivalent tablet for less - how can the iPad be simultaneously overpriced and yet have no equivalent cheaper competitors, and yet also be selling so fast they can't make them fast enough (they have shipped 15 million of them since it launched 9 months ago)?
It's not for lack of trying - there are a number of competitors trying, yet so far no one has managed it. The slashdot apple haters all sat back thinking it would be easy and that an Android tablet would come along that was cheaper and better, hardware wise, than the iPad, and so far that has yet to happen - and now Apple has released an updated version with better specs at the same price point as the old one.
Might it just be that the iPad is about as cheap as it could be right now, for the tech that is inside it? If no one else can make a cheaper one with "all these same parts that everyone else uses" then perhaps so! You said it yourself - Apple uses the same parts, so where are the cheaper, better tablets?
Yes, my point was they don't need to reduce the price to increase sales - they are already selling them nearly as fast as they can make them. They can't really sell them much faster.
I'm sure the price will have been carefully decided based on market research to ensure the maximum total profit (either by fewer expensive sales or many more cheaper sales etc).
Also, it would be nice to see your source for $1.50 being the price of the GPS + 3G radio hardware (don't forget to include the royalty fees for devices that use those cellular radio patents).
1200 dollars for in 13?
I'm not sure what this means - I assume you're talking about the 13" Macbook Pro, which is about $200 more than the equivalent HP Envy.
That neglects the tradeoffs for a replaceable battery - bigger phone and/or smaller capacity and lifespan.
For the vast majority of cases, the inbuilt battery is far superior since the majority of people *don't* replace their batteries before the device itself is replaced. Especially with the lithium polymer cells. I am heading towards year 3 of owning an iPhone 3G and the battery is still as good as the day I got it.
The "extra 3mm" of space, the longer lasting charge and the fact that it is still working at the same level it was 2.5 years ago is *well worth it*.
If you can't handle a phone with an inbuilt battery then don't buy one. Apple is not unique in this regard.
You just use the dock connector on the bottom - it has USB built in. I am unsure why the device doesn't have an extra physical USB port next to the dock connector rather than using the adapter cable - possibly aesthetics, perhaps royalty fees on USB ports? Maybe the phases of the moon.
Either way, it has USB function - I use it all the time on my various iOS devices.
So the identical apps on my friend's iPhone 4 run at the same speed as my iPhone 3G?
Good to know.
Of course, it's nonsense, but never mind.
The version of Carcassonne, Motion GPS, Slightly Annoyed Avians etc are the same on our two phones, but they run better on the iPhone 4 (especially the AI in Carcassonne planning its moves in the late game - it is way faster on the iPhone 4). The app drawing and responsiveness are better for Motion GPS which is taxing the older 3G to its limit (and it has no magnetic compass either, so the compass screen uses a GPS-derived heading which is extra work for the version with the weaker cpu!)
There are also apps that do only work on the newer phones - all the barcode reader apps need a 3GS or above and will not work on the 3G and lower since the camera does not have autofocus on the older phones. ie, fragmentation.
There is no reason why there won't be a performance upgrade just because the older model still exists.
You can opt for your original one back if you like I believe - it just takes longer than then crossing in the mail by sending you a refurbished phone since they have to wait to receive your old one and replace the battery.
Most people probably don't mind the refurb (as long as it is a good one) for the much faster turnaround - you just have to restore your phone from backup when you get it. Takes about 15 minutes.
My iPhone 3G is still going strong to this day, long after I first got it. The battery has shown no signs of diminished capacity and I am a long time out of contract (when the mobile operator would have loved me to have re-upped for a 3GS or an iPhone 4) but I am now on a rolling month-to-month tariff with an iPhone with a supposedly "hopeless" battery that will have "significantly" degraded with age.
My single anecdote is clearly not data, but I certainly have had no cause to worry about the fact that my battery is not replaceable. It still works just as well as when I bought it, not long after the 3G was released in the UK (11th July 2008). So far, 2.5 years after I bought it, it is showing *no* signs of degraded performance, certainly not "an hour or two" as you claim after "a year or two". You are, respectfully, talking out of your ass with totally made up numbers.
I don't charge it everyday, but I do use it every day - it is my phone, my PDA/Calendar, my mobile email client, my mobile web and my my mobile games machine (I just love Carcassonne, I just wish they'd release more tilesets - I'm used to playing with about 3 sets mixed together).
Oh, and of course, Slightly More Than Irritated Avians.
Yes, but that's the rub - Nokia have said "we want this, this, this and this" (or whatever it is specifically they are asking for) "we think that adds up to the cost".
Apple have said "no, we think it's worth more than that, we'll give you this, this and this, less this".
The two can't agree on the value of the patents Nokia wants to cross license, hence the lawsuit. Apple says one thing, Nokia says another and they can't make a deal without resorting to a lawsuit, which neither really wants since it's expensive.
I have no idea who is right, but the way this issue is portrayed on/. it's painted like a one-sided "obvious" situation like the SCO madness. It's far from it - it's two companies that can't agree how much some pieces of virtual property are worth in order to settle a debt that Apple owes to Nokia. If Nokia were willing to take cash they could settle it in 5 seconds. The value of the GSM patents is fixed by all the other deals Nokia has cut - what's at issue is what Apple's box of patents is worth and how many it will give over.
It may turn out that Nokia is right, or it could be Apple. Or more likely, some middle ground as determined by legal wrangling in a courtroom.
Come back when the laws of physics have been changed, or we have more efficient electronics. There are only so much energy density you can shove into a small space for that price right now.
So you want 20 hours of active use on a 10" LCD screen. Are there any Netbooks that can even do that with substantially bigger batteries?
I want a cheaper iPad too, but *why* would they reduce the cost? From a purely business perspective they are selling them almost as fast as they can make them at the current prices and crucially, there is no current competitor that can match the price of the old one! The closest so far is the Xoom and it is looking to be at least as expensive as iPad 1 and maybe even more.
If someone comes along with a serious competitor that undercuts them, I am sure the price will go down, but from a purely capitalist/shareholder perspective the price point they have is already selling them fast enough to barely have to dust the boxes in the stockroom.
It already has a card reader that works with iPad 1 - it connects to the dock connector. I was hoping for a built in card reader too, since they have been putting them on the iMac and MBP I was expecting it to show up here too, but no - you still need to use the adapter.
No, I'm not making a judgement call either way - which is why I said explicitly "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
I have no idea who is "right", just that they two of them can't agree, which is why they are in court over it.
Apple knows it has to pay - there is no indication from Apple that it wants to "scam off" Nokia - Apple needs to pay what everyone else paid, and will do so. It doesn't want to "get away with anything", but equally it doesn't want to be taken for a ride either, which is specifically what the RAND licensing is supposed to prevent.
Obviously both companies want to end up with a favourable deal to itself, but Apple is aware what the cost of the GSM patents are - it's the same as everyone else paid.
No, Apple is willing to play by the cross licensing rules - it is *well aware* that it needs to pay to use those patents, and it is also well aware they are covered by RAND terms, so Nokia can't charge $100 to company A and $200 to company B - they have to charge the same amount. This is to prevent deliberately screwing your competition and to avoid cartels forming, and was a condition of the patents being included in the GSM standard.
Where it gets tricky is exactly what the value is. If it was all done in cash then there would be no problem, but it is often done by exchanging and cross licensing patents as "payment", each of which is assigned a dollar value.
Apple is contending that Nokia is undervaluing the patents they want in exchange for the GSM stuff (ie, effectively overcharging them compared to other companies that have licensed GSM patents - a no no in RAND deals).
So, as typical of an Apple bash, you are deliberately twisting this to make it into "Apple won't pay and is just ripping off Nokia" when it is really much closer to "six of one, half a dozen of the other" - the legal battles are designed to determine what the patents that Nokia wants are worth, and whether Apple is being unfairly overcharged for the GSM patents.
It is *not* about Apple not "playing the same way". They have been trying to "play the same way" but have hit an impasse with Nokia - hence, lawsuit to settle it. That's what lawsuits are for.
So Android has been around longer than OS X and iOS?
Interesting.
One might even say they said "hey, that's a good name for applications, and hey, no one really used OS X so they won't see that people have been calling binaries "apps" since the 10.0 public beta.
The major clue is that binary packages on OS X are specialised folders with the extension.app, generally residing in the Applications folder - people starting calling them apps immediately, and shortening the main folder name to the "apps folder".
Whether Android has been using the term "elsewhere" "for a bit" is irrelevant.
Now, on that subject there *was* another company that launched an "app store" on the web before Apple launched the iOS app store and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called (apart from the "something something app store"). So, they were not first, but the other company hasn't made any fuss about it. Maybe they're waiting for this dust to settle so they can sue both Apple and MS at the same time!
And what's wrong with that? They advocate on behalf of their members, but they don't say that their members' software and formats are the only option. Use whatever works!
A CEO, a republican and a unionised worker sit down in a cafe in front of a plate of 12 cookies. The CEO takes eleven of the cookies then whispers to the republican "hey, watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
If you think unions are unnecessary, and that they hold as much lobbying power and effectiveness as the "special interests" who eat from a much finer table then you really do need to look at reality, because you sure aren't seeing it right now.
Note that they didn't actually say that. You have interpreted it that way, but this is slashdot. Microsoft open sourcing windows would be met with "it's a trap!".
They said the policy would reduce choice and hinder innovation, because it *does* place restrictions on choice. "Open only" is more restrictive than "Open or Closed, whatever works best for the task at hand".
Ideally for all public-accessible document and interchange formats, open is clearly strongly preferred, but whatever happened to "best tool for the job"?
Disclaimer: playing devil's advocate here but saying anything perceived to be "against" open software or supporting an "enemy" is dangerous around here.
I agree - it's why I never (and to be honest most people who understand) say that OS X is not "immune" to threats, but is well protected in general - for example, SAMBA is not on by default in an OS X install which helps to limit the damage.
Windows probably wouldn't be half as bad as it was, reputation wise, if it shipped with things off by default.
I'm not seeing the issue with the OpenSSH one - the most recent version of OS X that is vulnerable is listed as OS X 10.1.5, which is *ancient*, and the page was updated in November 2007 according to the site, which is after OS X 10.5 shipped, so I assuming that 10.2 and above are not vulnerable to this?
I know there have been privilege escalation exploits on OS X - I have read about them in the security updates when patching them. Are there any known open ones now? (ie, ones that have been discovered and published as bugs/exploits and as yet have been unpatched).
It's just that Mac users face an unending storm of abuse from people who don't use OS X for our choice of OS. Most of us are not zealots, or fanboys, and run multiple systems and OSes - right tool for the right job etc.
I try not to define my self worth by the operating system I use - the same can't be said for platform zealots, but they exist on all major platforms. I'm sure there are some BeOS zealots around here. Last time I took a poll, both BeOS users told me "Windows sucks!".
Rampant, trollish "windows sucks!" posts are no more representative of the Mac user base than the rabid anti-Apple troll in the other thread on here at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Goes to pre-order only when I try to buy one right now, at least in the UK.
It seems Best Buy has them, for in store pickup only for $799 - which is more expensive than 5 of the 6 iPad 2 models. Only the 64GB 3G model is more (at $829).
Of course they're not magic. They use the term in their marketing, but if you know what's inside you know what they use to actually build these things.
Of *course* it's the point that you can't show me an equivalent tablet for less - how can the iPad be simultaneously overpriced and yet have no equivalent cheaper competitors, and yet also be selling so fast they can't make them fast enough (they have shipped 15 million of them since it launched 9 months ago)?
It's not for lack of trying - there are a number of competitors trying, yet so far no one has managed it. The slashdot apple haters all sat back thinking it would be easy and that an Android tablet would come along that was cheaper and better, hardware wise, than the iPad, and so far that has yet to happen - and now Apple has released an updated version with better specs at the same price point as the old one.
Might it just be that the iPad is about as cheap as it could be right now, for the tech that is inside it? If no one else can make a cheaper one with "all these same parts that everyone else uses" then perhaps so! You said it yourself - Apple uses the same parts, so where are the cheaper, better tablets?
Yes, my point was they don't need to reduce the price to increase sales - they are already selling them nearly as fast as they can make them. They can't really sell them much faster.
I'm sure the price will have been carefully decided based on market research to ensure the maximum total profit (either by fewer expensive sales or many more cheaper sales etc).
Show me the equivalent tablet that is cheaper...
Also, it would be nice to see your source for $1.50 being the price of the GPS + 3G radio hardware (don't forget to include the royalty fees for devices that use those cellular radio patents).
1200 dollars for in 13?
I'm not sure what this means - I assume you're talking about the 13" Macbook Pro, which is about $200 more than the equivalent HP Envy.
That neglects the tradeoffs for a replaceable battery - bigger phone and/or smaller capacity and lifespan.
For the vast majority of cases, the inbuilt battery is far superior since the majority of people *don't* replace their batteries before the device itself is replaced. Especially with the lithium polymer cells. I am heading towards year 3 of owning an iPhone 3G and the battery is still as good as the day I got it.
The "extra 3mm" of space, the longer lasting charge and the fact that it is still working at the same level it was 2.5 years ago is *well worth it*.
If you can't handle a phone with an inbuilt battery then don't buy one. Apple is not unique in this regard.
So, show me all the lesser-priced but equivalent competitors...
I can wait.
The GPS chip is part of the 3G board, which is missing from all the WiFi only models.
You just use the dock connector on the bottom - it has USB built in. I am unsure why the device doesn't have an extra physical USB port next to the dock connector rather than using the adapter cable - possibly aesthetics, perhaps royalty fees on USB ports? Maybe the phases of the moon.
Either way, it has USB function - I use it all the time on my various iOS devices.
So the identical apps on my friend's iPhone 4 run at the same speed as my iPhone 3G?
Good to know.
Of course, it's nonsense, but never mind.
The version of Carcassonne, Motion GPS, Slightly Annoyed Avians etc are the same on our two phones, but they run better on the iPhone 4 (especially the AI in Carcassonne planning its moves in the late game - it is way faster on the iPhone 4). The app drawing and responsiveness are better for Motion GPS which is taxing the older 3G to its limit (and it has no magnetic compass either, so the compass screen uses a GPS-derived heading which is extra work for the version with the weaker cpu!)
There are also apps that do only work on the newer phones - all the barcode reader apps need a 3GS or above and will not work on the 3G and lower since the camera does not have autofocus on the older phones. ie, fragmentation.
There is no reason why there won't be a performance upgrade just because the older model still exists.
You can opt for your original one back if you like I believe - it just takes longer than then crossing in the mail by sending you a refurbished phone since they have to wait to receive your old one and replace the battery.
Most people probably don't mind the refurb (as long as it is a good one) for the much faster turnaround - you just have to restore your phone from backup when you get it. Takes about 15 minutes.
My iPhone 3G is still going strong to this day, long after I first got it. The battery has shown no signs of diminished capacity and I am a long time out of contract (when the mobile operator would have loved me to have re-upped for a 3GS or an iPhone 4) but I am now on a rolling month-to-month tariff with an iPhone with a supposedly "hopeless" battery that will have "significantly" degraded with age.
My single anecdote is clearly not data, but I certainly have had no cause to worry about the fact that my battery is not replaceable. It still works just as well as when I bought it, not long after the 3G was released in the UK (11th July 2008). So far, 2.5 years after I bought it, it is showing *no* signs of degraded performance, certainly not "an hour or two" as you claim after "a year or two". You are, respectfully, talking out of your ass with totally made up numbers.
I don't charge it everyday, but I do use it every day - it is my phone, my PDA/Calendar, my mobile email client, my mobile web and my my mobile games machine (I just love Carcassonne, I just wish they'd release more tilesets - I'm used to playing with about 3 sets mixed together).
Oh, and of course, Slightly More Than Irritated Avians.
Yes, but that's the rub - Nokia have said "we want this, this, this and this" (or whatever it is specifically they are asking for) "we think that adds up to the cost".
Apple have said "no, we think it's worth more than that, we'll give you this, this and this, less this".
The two can't agree on the value of the patents Nokia wants to cross license, hence the lawsuit. Apple says one thing, Nokia says another and they can't make a deal without resorting to a lawsuit, which neither really wants since it's expensive.
I have no idea who is right, but the way this issue is portrayed on /. it's painted like a one-sided "obvious" situation like the SCO madness. It's far from it - it's two companies that can't agree how much some pieces of virtual property are worth in order to settle a debt that Apple owes to Nokia. If Nokia were willing to take cash they could settle it in 5 seconds. The value of the GSM patents is fixed by all the other deals Nokia has cut - what's at issue is what Apple's box of patents is worth and how many it will give over.
It may turn out that Nokia is right, or it could be Apple. Or more likely, some middle ground as determined by legal wrangling in a courtroom.
Come back when the laws of physics have been changed, or we have more efficient electronics. There are only so much energy density you can shove into a small space for that price right now.
So you want 20 hours of active use on a 10" LCD screen. Are there any Netbooks that can even do that with substantially bigger batteries?
I want a cheaper iPad too, but *why* would they reduce the cost? From a purely business perspective they are selling them almost as fast as they can make them at the current prices and crucially, there is no current competitor that can match the price of the old one! The closest so far is the Xoom and it is looking to be at least as expensive as iPad 1 and maybe even more.
If someone comes along with a serious competitor that undercuts them, I am sure the price will go down, but from a purely capitalist/shareholder perspective the price point they have is already selling them fast enough to barely have to dust the boxes in the stockroom.
It already has a card reader that works with iPad 1 - it connects to the dock connector. I was hoping for a built in card reader too, since they have been putting them on the iMac and MBP I was expecting it to show up here too, but no - you still need to use the adapter.
No, I'm not making a judgement call either way - which is why I said explicitly "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
I have no idea who is "right", just that they two of them can't agree, which is why they are in court over it.
Apple knows it has to pay - there is no indication from Apple that it wants to "scam off" Nokia - Apple needs to pay what everyone else paid, and will do so. It doesn't want to "get away with anything", but equally it doesn't want to be taken for a ride either, which is specifically what the RAND licensing is supposed to prevent.
Obviously both companies want to end up with a favourable deal to itself, but Apple is aware what the cost of the GSM patents are - it's the same as everyone else paid.
Cheaper than a Xoom though, and actually shipping in March :p
No, Apple is willing to play by the cross licensing rules - it is *well aware* that it needs to pay to use those patents, and it is also well aware they are covered by RAND terms, so Nokia can't charge $100 to company A and $200 to company B - they have to charge the same amount. This is to prevent deliberately screwing your competition and to avoid cartels forming, and was a condition of the patents being included in the GSM standard.
Where it gets tricky is exactly what the value is. If it was all done in cash then there would be no problem, but it is often done by exchanging and cross licensing patents as "payment", each of which is assigned a dollar value.
Apple is contending that Nokia is undervaluing the patents they want in exchange for the GSM stuff (ie, effectively overcharging them compared to other companies that have licensed GSM patents - a no no in RAND deals).
So, as typical of an Apple bash, you are deliberately twisting this to make it into "Apple won't pay and is just ripping off Nokia" when it is really much closer to "six of one, half a dozen of the other" - the legal battles are designed to determine what the patents that Nokia wants are worth, and whether Apple is being unfairly overcharged for the GSM patents.
It is *not* about Apple not "playing the same way". They have been trying to "play the same way" but have hit an impasse with Nokia - hence, lawsuit to settle it. That's what lawsuits are for.
So Android has been around longer than OS X and iOS?
Interesting.
One might even say they said "hey, that's a good name for applications, and hey, no one really used OS X so they won't see that people have been calling binaries "apps" since the 10.0 public beta.
The major clue is that binary packages on OS X are specialised folders with the extension .app, generally residing in the Applications folder - people starting calling them apps immediately, and shortening the main folder name to the "apps folder".
Whether Android has been using the term "elsewhere" "for a bit" is irrelevant.
Now, on that subject there *was* another company that launched an "app store" on the web before Apple launched the iOS app store and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called (apart from the "something something app store"). So, they were not first, but the other company hasn't made any fuss about it. Maybe they're waiting for this dust to settle so they can sue both Apple and MS at the same time!
And what's wrong with that? They advocate on behalf of their members, but they don't say that their members' software and formats are the only option. Use whatever works!
The beauty of choice!
A CEO, a republican and a unionised worker sit down in a cafe in front of a plate of 12 cookies. The CEO takes eleven of the cookies then whispers to the republican "hey, watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
If you think unions are unnecessary, and that they hold as much lobbying power and effectiveness as the "special interests" who eat from a much finer table then you really do need to look at reality, because you sure aren't seeing it right now.
Note that they didn't actually say that. You have interpreted it that way, but this is slashdot. Microsoft open sourcing windows would be met with "it's a trap!".
They said the policy would reduce choice and hinder innovation, because it *does* place restrictions on choice. "Open only" is more restrictive than "Open or Closed, whatever works best for the task at hand".
Ideally for all public-accessible document and interchange formats, open is clearly strongly preferred, but whatever happened to "best tool for the job"?
Disclaimer: playing devil's advocate here but saying anything perceived to be "against" open software or supporting an "enemy" is dangerous around here.
I agree - it's why I never (and to be honest most people who understand) say that OS X is not "immune" to threats, but is well protected in general - for example, SAMBA is not on by default in an OS X install which helps to limit the damage.
Windows probably wouldn't be half as bad as it was, reputation wise, if it shipped with things off by default.
I'm not seeing the issue with the OpenSSH one - the most recent version of OS X that is vulnerable is listed as OS X 10.1.5, which is *ancient*, and the page was updated in November 2007 according to the site, which is after OS X 10.5 shipped, so I assuming that 10.2 and above are not vulnerable to this?
And an example of this would be?
Bonus points for something in the wild.
I know there have been privilege escalation exploits on OS X - I have read about them in the security updates when patching them. Are there any known open ones now? (ie, ones that have been discovered and published as bugs/exploits and as yet have been unpatched).
No, it's not typical.
It's just that Mac users face an unending storm of abuse from people who don't use OS X for our choice of OS. Most of us are not zealots, or fanboys, and run multiple systems and OSes - right tool for the right job etc.
I try not to define my self worth by the operating system I use - the same can't be said for platform zealots, but they exist on all major platforms. I'm sure there are some BeOS zealots around here. Last time I took a poll, both BeOS users told me "Windows sucks!".
Rampant, trollish "windows sucks!" posts are no more representative of the Mac user base than the rabid anti-Apple troll in the other thread on here at the moment.
I'm not the OP, but if I do that on my Gmail accounts all I see to the right of the compose message window in my email client is more of my OS's UI.
I never use the web interface for my gmail accounts, except to initially set them up. From then on it is 100% handled by Mail.app on OS X via IMAP.