jmgregory1
Apr 6, 03:33 PM
The idea that Apple needs competitors to keep pushing forward with the iPad or any other product makes no sense. Apple brought the iPad, iPhone, iPod to market and it's the competition that is trying to catch up to Apple. By suggesting that Apple needs others to push forward with new designs/ideas is not giving Apple the credit they deserve for creating these markets (as we know them) in the first place.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 02:38 PM
I'd like something upgradeable, where I could replace/upgrade HDDs, optical drives, and most importantly the display - yet a PowerMac is overkill for my needs. It sure would be nice to see, but I doubt Apple will do it... :cool:
I doubt they'll do it too. For some reason this idea has come up over and over again during the last few weeks, and I'll continue to say what I've been saying - I don't see why apple would do that. It's a very appealing idea for a lot of MR folks because a lot of us are knowledgable users but not really professionals. But beyond that group, which is prevalent at MR but fairly rare in the real world, I don't see the appeal.
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
I doubt they'll do it too. For some reason this idea has come up over and over again during the last few weeks, and I'll continue to say what I've been saying - I don't see why apple would do that. It's a very appealing idea for a lot of MR folks because a lot of us are knowledgable users but not really professionals. But beyond that group, which is prevalent at MR but fairly rare in the real world, I don't see the appeal.
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
macenforcer
Aug 17, 12:08 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
The iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone in the market, so not surprising.
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
Bengt77
Aug 17, 04:11 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
NJRonbo
Jun 23, 05:32 PM
Good luck with that one as that is not going to happen. They did not advertise Pre-Orders. They said reserves only. They told no money from you nor did they hold credit card information on file like Apple does.
No...
...but what they did do was waste people's time.
How can you ask customers to stand in line last
week -- in my case (and certainly others) arriving
to the store early to be first in line and then wait
an additional 90 minutes for the store to attempt
to generate a PIN --- and be told that none of
what you just did will guarantee you a phone?
Imagine only 9,000 pins available and every Radio
Shack Store online at the same time trying to get
one for their customers on line. It's like a
Beatles Reunion concert going on sale nationwide
through Ticketmaster and everyone is trying to get
their ticket at the same time.
All the inconvenience and wasted time that RS
put their customers through last week all in the
name of asking for a phone that is not officially
being called a "preorder."
Now, all those people that stood in line and
had to go through the hassle of wasting their
afternoon to not officially preorder an iPhone
aren't seemingly going to get one at all.
Radio Shack really screwed this one up.
At least people who lined up at AT&T to
preorder a phone weren't told that they
were doing so just to gauge a number of
requests and none of them would be
guaranteed a phone.
It's really sad that all of us that spent
an hour, two or three in the stores last
week did it all for naught.
No...
...but what they did do was waste people's time.
How can you ask customers to stand in line last
week -- in my case (and certainly others) arriving
to the store early to be first in line and then wait
an additional 90 minutes for the store to attempt
to generate a PIN --- and be told that none of
what you just did will guarantee you a phone?
Imagine only 9,000 pins available and every Radio
Shack Store online at the same time trying to get
one for their customers on line. It's like a
Beatles Reunion concert going on sale nationwide
through Ticketmaster and everyone is trying to get
their ticket at the same time.
All the inconvenience and wasted time that RS
put their customers through last week all in the
name of asking for a phone that is not officially
being called a "preorder."
Now, all those people that stood in line and
had to go through the hassle of wasting their
afternoon to not officially preorder an iPhone
aren't seemingly going to get one at all.
Radio Shack really screwed this one up.
At least people who lined up at AT&T to
preorder a phone weren't told that they
were doing so just to gauge a number of
requests and none of them would be
guaranteed a phone.
It's really sad that all of us that spent
an hour, two or three in the stores last
week did it all for naught.
Nuks
Aug 26, 06:31 PM
Can someone briefly explain the huge benefits of Santa Rosa (in layman's terms) or post a link to a thread/description of it?
Much thanks.
Much thanks.
raymondso
Sep 19, 10:14 AM
Could be that they are expecting a flood of returns after they introduce the new MB and MBP. And they are waiting so they can send out fresh referbs. Just a though.
reasonable:p
and i hope u are right! :D
reasonable:p
and i hope u are right! :D
gugy
Aug 16, 11:28 PM
this is the paragraph from the article that makes more sense for Adobe users on the quad G5:
"SHOULD YOU BUY A MAC PRO?
Should you buy a new Mac Pro or a closeout or refurbished Quad-Core G5? If cost is a factor and you use non-UB pro apps (like Photoshop CS2), then we think the Quad-Core G5 is still a valid choice. After all, you can sell it on eBay when Photoshop CS3 is released and buy next year's "Octo-Core" Mac Pro."
It makes me itching now. I want a Mac Pro! :eek:
But I think wait for the "Octo-Core" will be rewarding alongside Adobe CS3.
"SHOULD YOU BUY A MAC PRO?
Should you buy a new Mac Pro or a closeout or refurbished Quad-Core G5? If cost is a factor and you use non-UB pro apps (like Photoshop CS2), then we think the Quad-Core G5 is still a valid choice. After all, you can sell it on eBay when Photoshop CS3 is released and buy next year's "Octo-Core" Mac Pro."
It makes me itching now. I want a Mac Pro! :eek:
But I think wait for the "Octo-Core" will be rewarding alongside Adobe CS3.
NewSc2
Sep 19, 02:18 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
bandalay
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
That something that could be explained in two lines by someone in the know has to go to a Federal lawsuit. Clearly Apple is trying to avoid getting drawn into a privacy discussion, because as we know, there's no end to the absurd lengths people will declare their rights trod upon.
Someone's trying to make a "big thing�" out of this.
Someone's trying to make a "big thing�" out of this.
Multimedia
Aug 22, 08:19 AM
This ComputerWorld Review is far less restrained than the ArsTechnica moderate take:
Hands on: The new Mac Pro is 'one screamer' (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&pageNumber=4)
You could say they are gushing over it. Looks like a home run in the PC world. Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it. Next question will be "Oh you have a Mac Pro. What OS are you running on it?"
Answer: Whatever works for the job. :p
Hands on: The new Mac Pro is 'one screamer' (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&pageNumber=4)
You could say they are gushing over it. Looks like a home run in the PC world. Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it. Next question will be "Oh you have a Mac Pro. What OS are you running on it?"
Answer: Whatever works for the job. :p
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:32 PM
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
firestarter
Apr 12, 03:20 PM
Anyway, Takeshi Kitano rules. :D
THIS!
Just trying to spread the message! ;)
THIS!
Just trying to spread the message! ;)
tekmoe
Sep 19, 07:38 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
i agree. i think the store would have went down already. next monday has got to be it.
i agree. i think the store would have went down already. next monday has got to be it.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Burger King
Apr 27, 09:23 AM
Just to be clear - you think someone who wants to question what is and what is not being tracked is a whiner?
Did I read you correctly. Nice name calling.
After an issue has arose and been debated to death and then even after the manufacturer has addressed the concerns of the paranoid, it is time to give it a rest.
But then when those who wish to beat what should now be a dead horse into little bitty pieces continue, then yes you are correct. Maybe whiner is not the correct title for these people. ;)
Did I read you correctly. Nice name calling.
After an issue has arose and been debated to death and then even after the manufacturer has addressed the concerns of the paranoid, it is time to give it a rest.
But then when those who wish to beat what should now be a dead horse into little bitty pieces continue, then yes you are correct. Maybe whiner is not the correct title for these people. ;)
macduke
Mar 25, 10:51 PM
So is there real resolution independence or just a x2 mode?
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
SeattleMoose
Mar 25, 10:40 PM
Wasn't that "double secret golden master"? :cool:
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
err404
Apr 25, 01:59 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Clearly you don't understand the issue. Since they do not collect this data, Apple is NOT tracking you. Rather your phone is generating a local cache of nearby cell towers and wifi hotspots. This benefits you by making your phones GPS function faster, more accurately and with less battery.
The issue is that the cache is not properly protected and could be used to infer some generalized information about roughly where your phone has been. This data is only accessible by somebody with direct access to your phone, or you phones backup files.
As a side note, your cell provider logs more detailed location data and does provide this data to law enforcement and third party agencies.
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Clearly you don't understand the issue. Since they do not collect this data, Apple is NOT tracking you. Rather your phone is generating a local cache of nearby cell towers and wifi hotspots. This benefits you by making your phones GPS function faster, more accurately and with less battery.
The issue is that the cache is not properly protected and could be used to infer some generalized information about roughly where your phone has been. This data is only accessible by somebody with direct access to your phone, or you phones backup files.
As a side note, your cell provider logs more detailed location data and does provide this data to law enforcement and third party agencies.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 04:24 PM
Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
Plus, browsing the internet and checking mail is much better on a bigger screen.
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
Plus, browsing the internet and checking mail is much better on a bigger screen.
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
