EricNau
Nov 24, 01:02 AM
Last year the store was updated long after midnight.
mw360
Apr 6, 10:05 AM
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
Samurai
Jan 9, 04:12 PM
Are we sure that Apple didn't post the Keynote on iTunes this year ?
PurrBall
May 3, 06:30 PM
Apparently you've never been to Calgary...
Or Maine.
Or Maine.
more...
brepublican
Oct 20, 08:43 PM
when CS3 ships, watch the marketshare explode.
Definitely. Its amazing how the folks at Adobe seem to wield so much power... ? Or not, but its pretty interesting, especially now that Apple is just about almost in direct competition with them.
Definitely. Its amazing how the folks at Adobe seem to wield so much power... ? Or not, but its pretty interesting, especially now that Apple is just about almost in direct competition with them.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 07:22 AM
What y'all doing up so early? :)
Can't wait, can't wait!!
Can't wait, can't wait!!
more...
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Konfabulation
Oct 15, 12:41 PM
Apples Releases its 3Q numbers after the market close this Wednesday. There have been many times where Jobs has used blow out earnings announcements to launch new products in tandem. I wouldnt be surprised if they launched the video/wireless during their earnings call on Wed.
But when have thhey ever announced new products on a wednesday? Except after a long weekend? (C2D iMac) If anything it will be 10/24. (Mac Expo London, and a Tuesday)
But when have thhey ever announced new products on a wednesday? Except after a long weekend? (C2D iMac) If anything it will be 10/24. (Mac Expo London, and a Tuesday)
more...
idanchez
Apr 15, 05:36 PM
I hope this is a fake.What is the long slot on the side? Is it a spot for a memory card?
I think this is for the Volume Button... not memory card slot... It will probably look like the new iPad volume button.
I think this is for the Volume Button... not memory card slot... It will probably look like the new iPad volume button.
MacRumors
Sep 28, 11:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/28/steve-jobs-to-build-the-iphone-of-houses/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/09/28/124615-jobs_house_schematic_500.jpg
more...
Henna Tattoo Designs| Letter
writing fonts for tattoos
more...
Tattoo Writing Fonts
of tattoo writing Download
more...
Tattoo Fonts For the Lettering
back tattoo name
more...
handwriting fonts
Tattoo Designs Creative
tattoo-lettering-fonts
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/09/28/124615-jobs_house_schematic_500.jpg
more...
Small White Car
Oct 6, 10:18 AM
Hey. Good for them.
An even BETTER commercial would focus on the fact that AT&T service is slow and drops out even where there IS coverage.
Maybe that'll be their next ad.
An even BETTER commercial would focus on the fact that AT&T service is slow and drops out even where there IS coverage.
Maybe that'll be their next ad.
dethmaShine
Apr 11, 08:48 AM
Also Aero Peek,
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
Aero Peek is cool.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
I don't understand. Microsoft has a more consistent UI than Mac OS X? What are you smoking mate? For everything Windows is better, so why do you use SL?
As for iTunes, it has got more UI changes than probably any other software on the planet. iTunes is one software that's tweaked and changed and basically used as a reference point. With every single version you see a tweaked UI. That's intentional and not by mistake.
As for consistent look of the Mac OS, consistent doesn't mean it has to be the same. With respect to FaceTime, the window is all black. That means it is inconsistent, right? No its not.
The sense of operation and understanding still remains the same; which points to consistency and usability.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
As if UI guidelines are a hard and fast rule?
Apple has always been tweaking certain applications to test other UI's. Even I was corrected the other day when I pointed out that UI guidelines are dead. They are not dead; they are evolving. Take it as a constitution which is amended when required and from time to time.
The UI guidelines document are not hard and fast rules which cannot be edited or ignored. Twitter and other apps which out rightly ignore the guidelines were accepted, proving that Apple accepts consistency in understanding and operation rather than in visual appearance.
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
Aero Peek is cool.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
I don't understand. Microsoft has a more consistent UI than Mac OS X? What are you smoking mate? For everything Windows is better, so why do you use SL?
As for iTunes, it has got more UI changes than probably any other software on the planet. iTunes is one software that's tweaked and changed and basically used as a reference point. With every single version you see a tweaked UI. That's intentional and not by mistake.
As for consistent look of the Mac OS, consistent doesn't mean it has to be the same. With respect to FaceTime, the window is all black. That means it is inconsistent, right? No its not.
The sense of operation and understanding still remains the same; which points to consistency and usability.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
As if UI guidelines are a hard and fast rule?
Apple has always been tweaking certain applications to test other UI's. Even I was corrected the other day when I pointed out that UI guidelines are dead. They are not dead; they are evolving. Take it as a constitution which is amended when required and from time to time.
The UI guidelines document are not hard and fast rules which cannot be edited or ignored. Twitter and other apps which out rightly ignore the guidelines were accepted, proving that Apple accepts consistency in understanding and operation rather than in visual appearance.
more...
seanf
Mar 26, 02:53 PM
Well, chances are if it's being used it could well just be sitting there by the living room TV!I agree. To the OP - could you not just have a sneaky look through the Window and see if you can spot a 360?
Sean :)
Sean :)
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 09:29 PM
Ok, it's back.
arn
Cool! Click up or down to vote. Click the same button again to unvote!
arn
Cool! Click up or down to vote. Click the same button again to unvote!
more...
jonharris200
Jan 5, 04:23 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
flopticalcube
Apr 21, 10:28 PM
Better. Can we turn it off in User CP Options?
more...
Malcster
Sep 12, 04:17 AM
I thought it was 5pm?
would be but were on BST (GMT+1) matey.
would be but were on BST (GMT+1) matey.
zedsdead
Apr 15, 12:58 PM
It's fake. If Apple chooses to use the ipads design with the next iPhone, then it will have the plastic black bar like the 3G version. The apple logo is not enough for all the antenea, just the wi-fi probably.
Naimfan
May 4, 02:40 PM
If guns are so important to society, why is it taboo to have an adult conversation about their impact on that society?
That is an EXCELLENT question.
That is an EXCELLENT question.
charliex5
Sep 28, 01:25 PM
In an age where architect and design firms are just starting to apply to Apple's design principles to the building of homes, Steve Jobs has gone and designed the iPhone of houses.
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
Grasbak
Jan 9, 08:30 AM
Realistically, this is want I want:
drlunanerd
Aug 8, 04:07 PM
Hello "Einstein," -- while the panels may be the same, and they are, you should do a bit more research before tagging others with hostility.
The color management of Apple Cinema HD is superior to that of the Dell due to firmware differences and interaction with Colorsync in the actual OS. We do high-end color management on both 23 and 30" Cinema HD's -- we have a Dell 24 inch as well. Without custom profiles the Dell pales in comparision to the Mac Cinema HD's -- Even with a Custom Profile the Dell is less useful to us as most of our nationwide clients have Mac OS systems with Cinema HD's -- we can send a digital proof and insure that our client sees what we see thanks to the firmware/OS Sync.
In this respects Dells are very expensive monitors for us to use as they force us to burn physical color prints and FEDEX to clients. We cannot afford this in our job costs. So for our business we'll take the Cheaper, Superior Apple Cinema HD's over the less predictable, more expensive Dell's.
You really should consider all angles before bashing.
DJO
Does this superior colour management include the horrendous pink colour casts the 23" ACD is notorious for?
Of course if all your clients are using ACDs then it makes your job easier. Your logic is flawed as this does not mean ACDs are therefore superior monitors.
The color management of Apple Cinema HD is superior to that of the Dell due to firmware differences and interaction with Colorsync in the actual OS. We do high-end color management on both 23 and 30" Cinema HD's -- we have a Dell 24 inch as well. Without custom profiles the Dell pales in comparision to the Mac Cinema HD's -- Even with a Custom Profile the Dell is less useful to us as most of our nationwide clients have Mac OS systems with Cinema HD's -- we can send a digital proof and insure that our client sees what we see thanks to the firmware/OS Sync.
In this respects Dells are very expensive monitors for us to use as they force us to burn physical color prints and FEDEX to clients. We cannot afford this in our job costs. So for our business we'll take the Cheaper, Superior Apple Cinema HD's over the less predictable, more expensive Dell's.
You really should consider all angles before bashing.
DJO
Does this superior colour management include the horrendous pink colour casts the 23" ACD is notorious for?
Of course if all your clients are using ACDs then it makes your job easier. Your logic is flawed as this does not mean ACDs are therefore superior monitors.
djpob
Apr 5, 05:34 PM
Hi guys long time lurker here. I just downloaded this using a US itunes accounts out of curiousity as I've never seen a real iAd (I don't think we get them in Ireland).
Anyway when I browse the list of ads there are a total of 12 ads altogether... (the ones in the screenshot in the article are there too, I believe these might be a complete list... that was the intention right?)
iAds must be doing way worse than we thought...
Anyway when I browse the list of ads there are a total of 12 ads altogether... (the ones in the screenshot in the article are there too, I believe these might be a complete list... that was the intention right?)
iAds must be doing way worse than we thought...
nim81
Mar 13, 04:46 AM
While Symbian might have been first, I was talking strictly about iOS vs Android as that was what the poster hinted at.
Backgrounding certain tasks is fine, and yes it works well even though it's not a replacement for multi-tasking. What I hate is the task manager they came up with that is near useless since it doesn't actually give you a list of running tasks. It's a list of everything you've done with the phone, in like ever. You need to manually clean it up and even then, you don't know what is and isn't running.
I wasn't talking about design and updates. More like the marketing effort and the stagnation between said spec bumps. They marketed the crap out of the Rev A, then it just fell out of sight. Same for AppleTV 1st generation.
But thanks for assuming and correcting me on something I didn't mention or hint at. Real classy.
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
That said, I agree with what you say about the task manager, it feels really clunky. I don't know what would be the best way to change it, but I'm sure there has to be something better.
Going back to what the OP is saying, no Apple is of course not unique in innovating, to suggest so is just blinkered. Taking the point of the multitasking or even copy and paste, I'm pretty sure that if other mobile OSs weren't doing this, Apple would have been happy to sit back and say sorry, you just can't do that. They can be quite an arrogant company like that.
Backgrounding certain tasks is fine, and yes it works well even though it's not a replacement for multi-tasking. What I hate is the task manager they came up with that is near useless since it doesn't actually give you a list of running tasks. It's a list of everything you've done with the phone, in like ever. You need to manually clean it up and even then, you don't know what is and isn't running.
I wasn't talking about design and updates. More like the marketing effort and the stagnation between said spec bumps. They marketed the crap out of the Rev A, then it just fell out of sight. Same for AppleTV 1st generation.
But thanks for assuming and correcting me on something I didn't mention or hint at. Real classy.
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
That said, I agree with what you say about the task manager, it feels really clunky. I don't know what would be the best way to change it, but I'm sure there has to be something better.
Going back to what the OP is saying, no Apple is of course not unique in innovating, to suggest so is just blinkered. Taking the point of the multitasking or even copy and paste, I'm pretty sure that if other mobile OSs weren't doing this, Apple would have been happy to sit back and say sorry, you just can't do that. They can be quite an arrogant company like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment