They really didn't do the same thing. The killer app for the iPhone was a decent touch-screen web browser and a very stable OS, neither was available on the S60 devices. It also shifted away the phone app from being the centerpiece to just being another app amongst others, which resulted in a paradigm shift. Battery life on Symbian phones was also quite awful, if you actually used any radios instead of just keeping the phone in stand-by. Symbian phones were also very crash-prone, unlike the iPhones, and you wouldn't get any major firmware updates, merely some hotfixes to some of the serious bugs. You aren't just comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing a mid-90's low-end keypad-controlled handheld system design to a modern, touch-screen-controlled Unix-based system.
The batteries aren't as hard to replace as some non-techies make you believe. Buy the parts from chinese retailers, do the work yourself and the phone will perform like when it was new. There are a lot of people with worse phones, who would appreciate even an old smartphone.
Pretty much, yes. The Apple haters are similar to the Microsoft haters, except they target hate wider than the Apple products themselves; their imaginary straw-man Apple customers.
The point is, that the only way to (legally) aquire magsafe connectors is to cut them off Apple's power supplies. The MagSafe connector includes a "DRM" chip, which does the handshake with the MacBook and there are no third parties selling "pirated" MagSafe connectors.
As for the batteries, yes, I expect there'll be people who figure out how to replace the batteries without replacing the top-case + keyboard + trackpad in a package for $50-$150, but in many cases it'll be a worse value than getting a new, shiny top-case + keyboard + trackpad as a part of Apple's $200 battery deal. Damaged top-case components are fairly common in second-hand 'Books and replacing those will probably get a better re-sale value than just replacing the battery or selling with a damaged battery + worn top-case parts.
In case you haven't noticed, the people bitching are people who have never touched an Apple product in their life, and probably never will no matter what Apple does.
Why is this modded down? Besides, the Retina MacBook Pro batteries ARE replaceable, you just replace the entire top-case with battery, keyboard and trackpad as a single unit. It's $200 including the Apple-certified work to replace it: http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ IMO, at the time the battery is worn-out, the top-case/keyboard/trackpad have seen better days anyway, which makes this operation much more affordable than on earlier MacBook Pro models.
The user would have to specifically enable the respective iCloud settings to make the device iCloud-accessible to anyone, including themselves and Apple.
Well, still says something about the phones when they specifically mention iPhone as difficult. They probably crack the others easily, but the iPhone goes over their skill level.
No, USB 1.0 headers were present on some motherboards in 1996 or so. Practically no device support, barely anyone knew what it was. USB 1.1 debuted in 1998. iMac was the first machine to get rid of the old peripherial ports in favor of USB 1.1, in 1998. It drove great demand for USB devices. USB 2.0 was early 00's stuff.
Some day, these will evolve into incredible resolutions and better sharpness and viewing angles technically possible with analog eyes. Add some good interfaces for displaying synthetic signals without cameras, and you'll have the perfect monitor. I think I saw the research for this stuff in late 90's, so turning research into mass-market products seems to have at least a decade of delay. The current research stuff being direct brain implants not only for eyesight, but sending and reading nerve signals directly to/from the brain means we'll all be bionic cyborgs within a couple of decades, if we can afford it.
Could be, so is.app I'm pretty sure both are amongst the requests for new TLD's. There will be a time, when all TLD's shorter than 5 letters are taken by domain squatters, if not by others.
It's not really like that either. The resolution is still 2880x1800 by definition, and 240ppi. Graphics of apps can be scaled to any of those settings, making the workspace equivalent to 1440x900, which is different from having a 1440x900 resolution. Text is also rendered at full depth, unless the app developer decided to write their own font renderer instead of using the standard one, or decided to write nonstandard widgets or just write graphics on-screen with an 1:1 pixel assumption. The scaling can also be turned off, leaving the user with really small UI elements physically.
I'm not into politics nor into evangelizing one way or the other. I'm here to state and discuss the state of the art. It can either be accepted, disputed or reacted upon. The rules of the game changed and it's been and will be just evolution from that point onwards. Google is still trying hard to duplicate Microsoft's past x86 success with multiple second-party hardware vendors, so it's not like Apple is the only choice. Microsoft won't give up without a fight either, and they are quite busy trying to make Windows 8 into what they see as their success plan.
The backbone of Apple's business is their merchant position in the AppStores and the iTunes media store. Not their hardware or software per se, it's about the system and control of the entire platform, while still enabling profits for developers and other third parties targeting their platform. Not at all different from how the way Microsoft operates its platform, except they didn't see the opportunity of bundling a package manager / store suite like how Apple does it, and they never had a chance to control the hardware platform except in the game console business.
Still, the core assets of a business is their data, hardware and software expenses are just the cost of the tools. They can do the switch to any other platform as long as they can somehow export and import their existing assets. If they fail to manage their assets, they learn a lesson unless they go under. It's purely a matter of tools, and the operating cost of the tools. Apple kinda beat Microsoft at their own game. It's not impossible for others to beat Apple at their own game, and at least Google is trying.
The main difference between an Apple user and Google user from their respective business perspectives are that the Apple user is still a customer, whereas the Google user is the product itself, whose usage patterns are sold to their customers; the advertizers. Microsoft is also still in the game, but I believe their strongest assets are bound to the x86 Windows platform, which I don't think has a very bright future. If they fail their ARM transition, they are gone. Outside the Apple/Google/Microsoft trio, there are very little choices from a typical corporation's standpoint. Facebook might still have a chance, if they play their cards right, but IMO the future of Facebook looks like the present of MySpace.
It's not about hardware anymore, if it ever was. It's about the entire platform and the software is the major part of it. Not at all different to how they currently operate, essentially locked into the windows platform, and they usually see it as a benefit, not a drawback. That's why it's so hard for multivendor approaches, like linux-based systems to catch on in the corporate world.
1. Why would the phone power that thing? If anything, it of course includes its own charger and battery and changes the phone, while it's docked. 2. That's what we have now, and requires maintenance of two separate systems: the phone and the laptop. Unifying them would definitely be a benefit, not a drawback.
Why would a single hardware provider be worse than a single software provider? The latter was never an issue for most companies. If anything, it's better for them if there is just party to support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong. You know, most companies aren't hackerspaces, where every user spends all their time tinkering various devices just for the sake of tinkering.
You can likewise get "any" bandwidth from any other connector too, but without the lossiness of the analog signal. The "VGA" signal itself is just really analog RGB with h/vsync and optional EDID information. Nothing specific about that either. There are also hard limits on what you can push through a setup like that. Definitely less information in most cases than on the more modern digital video buses. A spec defines only the minimum a specification-compatible device should support, just like in the case of VGA, every VGA card should be able to output at least 640x480@60Hz, just like a single-link DVI should be able to drive at least 1920x1200@60Hz, but there are really no limits on that design either, it's just up to cabling there too before the signal-to-noise ratio becomes too bad. HDMI itself is practically the same as DVI, but with added encryption and audio signals. Newer-spec HDMI ports can be still used as "over-spec" clocked single-link DVI ports with just passive adapters that wire one type of connector to another, which is useful for monitors like the IBM T221, which supports much higher bandwidths than regular single-link DVI can provide, but older versions of it didn't support dual-link DVI either, because it wasn't specified yet back then.
D-Sub itself doesn't mean anything specific. It's just a short for "D-subminiature" type of of connector. In the case of VGA is the horribly designed connector with 15 pins crammed in the footprint where a typical D-connector would have 9 pins (like on rs232 com-ports on legacy PC's and atari joystick ports). If you want to call the connector something, at least use the full name, D-sub-15, because there are all kinds of pin counts for D-sub connectors as well as regular D-connectors. A dense setup worsens the signal quality somewhat due to cross-talk (results in ghosting on the screen) and makes the connector itself weaker than in would otherwise be. It's not rare to get an occasional bent pin on the connector, because it doesn't really take any effort. Regular D15 connectors were used on at least the old-school Macs for their RGB output. Other systems used other connectors, ranging from some really exotic ones to just plain multiple BNC connectors. On legacy PC's the same regular D15 connector type was common for the (analog) joystick port.
Slashdot Mirror
They really didn't do the same thing. The killer app for the iPhone was a decent touch-screen web browser and a very stable OS, neither was available on the S60 devices. It also shifted away the phone app from being the centerpiece to just being another app amongst others, which resulted in a paradigm shift. Battery life on Symbian phones was also quite awful, if you actually used any radios instead of just keeping the phone in stand-by. Symbian phones were also very crash-prone, unlike the iPhones, and you wouldn't get any major firmware updates, merely some hotfixes to some of the serious bugs.
You aren't just comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing a mid-90's low-end keypad-controlled handheld system design to a modern, touch-screen-controlled Unix-based system.
Call forwarding isn't a phone feature, it's a carrier feature.
The batteries aren't as hard to replace as some non-techies make you believe. Buy the parts from chinese retailers, do the work yourself and the phone will perform like when it was new. There are a lot of people with worse phones, who would appreciate even an old smartphone.
Pretty much, yes. The Apple haters are similar to the Microsoft haters, except they target hate wider than the Apple products themselves; their imaginary straw-man Apple customers.
The point is, that the only way to (legally) aquire magsafe connectors is to cut them off Apple's power supplies. The MagSafe connector includes a "DRM" chip, which does the handshake with the MacBook and there are no third parties selling "pirated" MagSafe connectors.
As for the batteries, yes, I expect there'll be people who figure out how to replace the batteries without replacing the top-case + keyboard + trackpad in a package for $50-$150, but in many cases it'll be a worse value than getting a new, shiny top-case + keyboard + trackpad as a part of Apple's $200 battery deal. Damaged top-case components are fairly common in second-hand 'Books and replacing those will probably get a better re-sale value than just replacing the battery or selling with a damaged battery + worn top-case parts.
In case you haven't noticed, the people bitching are people who have never touched an Apple product in their life, and probably never will no matter what Apple does.
Why is this modded down? Besides, the Retina MacBook Pro batteries ARE replaceable, you just replace the entire top-case with battery, keyboard and trackpad as a single unit. It's $200 including the Apple-certified work to replace it: http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/
IMO, at the time the battery is worn-out, the top-case/keyboard/trackpad have seen better days anyway, which makes this operation much more affordable than on earlier MacBook Pro models.
No, because of the first step in instructions:
1) Cut your MacBook/MagSafe Adapter's cable.
The user would have to specifically enable the respective iCloud settings to make the device iCloud-accessible to anyone, including themselves and Apple.
Well, still says something about the phones when they specifically mention iPhone as difficult. They probably crack the others easily, but the iPhone goes over their skill level.
This should be +5 Funny.
..and 1.1 debuted in 1998.
No, USB 1.0 headers were present on some motherboards in 1996 or so. Practically no device support, barely anyone knew what it was. USB 1.1 debuted in 1998. iMac was the first machine to get rid of the old peripherial ports in favor of USB 1.1, in 1998. It drove great demand for USB devices. USB 2.0 was early 00's stuff.
Some day, these will evolve into incredible resolutions and better sharpness and viewing angles technically possible with analog eyes. Add some good interfaces for displaying synthetic signals without cameras, and you'll have the perfect monitor. I think I saw the research for this stuff in late 90's, so turning research into mass-market products seems to have at least a decade of delay. The current research stuff being direct brain implants not only for eyesight, but sending and reading nerve signals directly to/from the brain means we'll all be bionic cyborgs within a couple of decades, if we can afford it.
Could be, so is .app
I'm pretty sure both are amongst the requests for new TLD's.
There will be a time, when all TLD's shorter than 5 letters are taken by domain squatters, if not by others.
The answer is in the article. Fuel was delivered via the crank case and of course the huge spinning mass had an effect on the vehicle.
Yes, and a hint to the kids: park.com wasn't a website.
It's not really like that either. The resolution is still 2880x1800 by definition, and 240ppi. Graphics of apps can be scaled to any of those settings, making the workspace equivalent to 1440x900, which is different from having a 1440x900 resolution. Text is also rendered at full depth, unless the app developer decided to write their own font renderer instead of using the standard one, or decided to write nonstandard widgets or just write graphics on-screen with an 1:1 pixel assumption. The scaling can also be turned off, leaving the user with really small UI elements physically.
If you want a laptop, pick one or two of these:
- Compact
- Powerful
- Cheap
Your requirements are invalid, if you try all three.
I'm not into politics nor into evangelizing one way or the other. I'm here to state and discuss the state of the art. It can either be accepted, disputed or reacted upon. The rules of the game changed and it's been and will be just evolution from that point onwards. Google is still trying hard to duplicate Microsoft's past x86 success with multiple second-party hardware vendors, so it's not like Apple is the only choice. Microsoft won't give up without a fight either, and they are quite busy trying to make Windows 8 into what they see as their success plan.
The backbone of Apple's business is their merchant position in the AppStores and the iTunes media store. Not their hardware or software per se, it's about the system and control of the entire platform, while still enabling profits for developers and other third parties targeting their platform. Not at all different from how the way Microsoft operates its platform, except they didn't see the opportunity of bundling a package manager / store suite like how Apple does it, and they never had a chance to control the hardware platform except in the game console business.
Still, the core assets of a business is their data, hardware and software expenses are just the cost of the tools. They can do the switch to any other platform as long as they can somehow export and import their existing assets. If they fail to manage their assets, they learn a lesson unless they go under. It's purely a matter of tools, and the operating cost of the tools. Apple kinda beat Microsoft at their own game. It's not impossible for others to beat Apple at their own game, and at least Google is trying.
The main difference between an Apple user and Google user from their respective business perspectives are that the Apple user is still a customer, whereas the Google user is the product itself, whose usage patterns are sold to their customers; the advertizers. Microsoft is also still in the game, but I believe their strongest assets are bound to the x86 Windows platform, which I don't think has a very bright future. If they fail their ARM transition, they are gone. Outside the Apple/Google/Microsoft trio, there are very little choices from a typical corporation's standpoint. Facebook might still have a chance, if they play their cards right, but IMO the future of Facebook looks like the present of MySpace.
It's not about hardware anymore, if it ever was. It's about the entire platform and the software is the major part of it. Not at all different to how they currently operate, essentially locked into the windows platform, and they usually see it as a benefit, not a drawback. That's why it's so hard for multivendor approaches, like linux-based systems to catch on in the corporate world.
1. Why would the phone power that thing? If anything, it of course includes its own charger and battery and changes the phone, while it's docked.
2. That's what we have now, and requires maintenance of two separate systems: the phone and the laptop. Unifying them would definitely be a benefit, not a drawback.
Why would a single hardware provider be worse than a single software provider? The latter was never an issue for most companies. If anything, it's better for them if there is just party to support for both hardware and software if something goes wrong. You know, most companies aren't hackerspaces, where every user spends all their time tinkering various devices just for the sake of tinkering.
You can likewise get "any" bandwidth from any other connector too, but without the lossiness of the analog signal. The "VGA" signal itself is just really analog RGB with h/vsync and optional EDID information. Nothing specific about that either. There are also hard limits on what you can push through a setup like that. Definitely less information in most cases than on the more modern digital video buses. A spec defines only the minimum a specification-compatible device should support, just like in the case of VGA, every VGA card should be able to output at least 640x480@60Hz, just like a single-link DVI should be able to drive at least 1920x1200@60Hz, but there are really no limits on that design either, it's just up to cabling there too before the signal-to-noise ratio becomes too bad. HDMI itself is practically the same as DVI, but with added encryption and audio signals. Newer-spec HDMI ports can be still used as "over-spec" clocked single-link DVI ports with just passive adapters that wire one type of connector to another, which is useful for monitors like the IBM T221, which supports much higher bandwidths than regular single-link DVI can provide, but older versions of it didn't support dual-link DVI either, because it wasn't specified yet back then.
D-Sub itself doesn't mean anything specific. It's just a short for "D-subminiature" type of of connector. In the case of VGA is the horribly designed connector with 15 pins crammed in the footprint where a typical D-connector would have 9 pins (like on rs232 com-ports on legacy PC's and atari joystick ports). If you want to call the connector something, at least use the full name, D-sub-15, because there are all kinds of pin counts for D-sub connectors as well as regular D-connectors. A dense setup worsens the signal quality somewhat due to cross-talk (results in ghosting on the screen) and makes the connector itself weaker than in would otherwise be. It's not rare to get an occasional bent pin on the connector, because it doesn't really take any effort. Regular D15 connectors were used on at least the old-school Macs for their RGB output. Other systems used other connectors, ranging from some really exotic ones to just plain multiple BNC connectors. On legacy PC's the same regular D15 connector type was common for the (analog) joystick port.