rdowns
Mar 4, 01:12 PM
Okay, I've long suspected it, but this confirms it. You're just a very dedicated troll. No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
Wow.
Wow.
arn
Sep 25, 11:15 AM
So... what are we supposed to run this monstrosity on? The G5 QUADS had a hard enough time running the first one. I can't imagine running this on an iMac or worse... a mac mini.
JOKE JOKE JOKE
According to the new features list for Aperture 1.5
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
JOKE JOKE JOKE
According to the new features list for Aperture 1.5
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
mrw00tastic
Apr 25, 12:43 PM
If that is a guy holding that phone he needs to cut those nails...Damn hippy!
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
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.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
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.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
more...
geerlingguy
Oct 3, 08:46 PM
PowerBook G5s, of course!
No, really... I don't think we should expect too much out of the ordinary. iTV, updated iPod(s), new revision of MacBook Pro (perhaps), and Leopard, iLife and iWork updates.
The .Mac stuff is usually under-the-radar, but I suspect something new will come sometime before the keynote.
[Edit: I can't spell 'Leopard' - so shoot me.]
No, really... I don't think we should expect too much out of the ordinary. iTV, updated iPod(s), new revision of MacBook Pro (perhaps), and Leopard, iLife and iWork updates.
The .Mac stuff is usually under-the-radar, but I suspect something new will come sometime before the keynote.
[Edit: I can't spell 'Leopard' - so shoot me.]
LightSpeed1
Apr 17, 02:04 AM
Google is finding out just how difficult it is to negotiate with record labels. :pMy thoughts exactly.
more...
dukebound85
Jan 10, 09:35 PM
Wow- imagine if someone had the button pressing capability of shifting to Steve's next slide during his keynote. He's building suspense, toying with us, and bam. Revealed. On to next slide, hold, next slide, finally A/V guy turns projector off.
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
TonyC28
Oct 11, 03:50 PM
Pretty funny. One question though: obviously "there's a map for that" is a play-on-words for "there's an app for that." Isn't "there's an app for that" an Apple advertisement? Why take a shot at Apple with a similar phrase when Apple has nothing to do with AT&T's network? It's a clever line in the sense that it mocks another but it seems to miss the target.
more...
jholzner
Sep 12, 08:45 AM
please read the thread....
When you come across a bit of information that seems to point to some sort of confirmation to a rumor do you read 9 pages of threads or do you just post it? I scolled through real quick to see if the image had been posted and didn't see it. Lay off.
When you come across a bit of information that seems to point to some sort of confirmation to a rumor do you read 9 pages of threads or do you just post it? I scolled through real quick to see if the image had been posted and didn't see it. Lay off.
amac4me
Sep 12, 08:42 AM
please read the thread....
Same thing is happening to the following sites:
more...
justin bieber 2011 new
new justin bieber pictures march 2011. While now ieber of march st; While now ieber of march st. Multimedia. Jan 2, 01:27 PM
more...
new justin bieber wallpaper
new justin bieber 2011
more...
justin bieber 2011 new haircut
justin bieber 2011 new haircut
more...
new justin bieber 2011
justin bieber 2011 new haircut
justin bieber 2011 pictures
Same thing is happening to the following sites:
more...
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:34 AM
Ooh....nice find, the movies shown there are terrible though :-)
*SMACK!*
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
*SMACK!*
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
rockthecasbah
Oct 10, 05:16 PM
Well if they do launch it so soon, it probably won't replace the current iPods, but be a new highend model.
I agree, the 5.5 release is too soon to have it be a full replacement. Additionally it will likely be a lot more expensive and an unnecessary extra cost to those who don't need that functionality. Now the question remains however, will there be multiple capacities for the "true video" or just one large on?
I agree, the 5.5 release is too soon to have it be a full replacement. Additionally it will likely be a lot more expensive and an unnecessary extra cost to those who don't need that functionality. Now the question remains however, will there be multiple capacities for the "true video" or just one large on?
more...
Nekbeth
Apr 25, 04:00 PM
Thanks for your advice dejo, but I'm not stepping away because of lack of fundamentals. Interaction with other developers is an additional learning source (the main is all kind of documentation), of course I need to learn more about fundamentals of objective C just like you did when you had 3 months programming, but that ain't stopping me from asking help in forums. Some people help you, some don't, you just have to deal with that.
btw, thanks for pointing my error, your right.. those are declaration for cancelTime: and cancelIt: , I got confuse with the parameter :D
btw, thanks for pointing my error, your right.. those are declaration for cancelTime: and cancelIt: , I got confuse with the parameter :D
roadbloc
Apr 10, 02:08 AM
PS... Still got the silly giggles from thinking about the upcoming MS App store. :D:p:eek::p
You do know that Windows had an App Store before OS X, but it got axed due to it being badly implemented which resulted in lack of custom? All they are doing there is returning and improving one of their own features, not copying Apple.
You do know that Windows had an App Store before OS X, but it got axed due to it being badly implemented which resulted in lack of custom? All they are doing there is returning and improving one of their own features, not copying Apple.
more...
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:09 AM
Think they will close the store this morning to update the laptop line??? or will they do it when they close the store during the live session?
Don't get your hopes up. This is an iTMS update/iPod update.
Don't get your hopes up. This is an iTMS update/iPod update.
slipper
Apr 25, 11:56 AM
iPhone nano mock-up?
http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg
http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg
more...
anonymous guy
May 2, 11:38 AM
will the CDMA iPhone finally get an upgrade on time, or are they forever stuck in 4.2 fragmentation limbo?
Porco
Mar 28, 09:05 PM
Of course Apple are free to do what they want, and limit the scope of the awards in whatever way they see fit, but by doing so it lessens the value of winning the award, because it's from a smaller group of apps and is more blatantly self-serving rather than creating the impression that it is more of a recognition of genuinely well-designed software.
I would liken it to the Oscars, where films that are heavy on acting performances gain an instant advantage because most of the voters are actors. That's fine, but it doesn't mean the awards mean as much as if they were voted for by a more independent, disinterested (as opposed to uninterested) group that didn't have a built-in bias to promote the stature of their own section of the industry.
I would liken it to the Oscars, where films that are heavy on acting performances gain an instant advantage because most of the voters are actors. That's fine, but it doesn't mean the awards mean as much as if they were voted for by a more independent, disinterested (as opposed to uninterested) group that didn't have a built-in bias to promote the stature of their own section of the industry.
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 05:56 PM
I'm not saying that all other smart phones owners are jealous of my iPhone, I think we can all agree thats nonsense.
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
JoeG4
Apr 9, 05:23 PM
If Windows 8 was unix-based o_O
It's not happening. I wish it would... :D.
It's not happening. I wish it would... :D.
sparkleytone
Oct 28, 03:51 PM
Its not that big of a deal. Every "OSx86" release we have seen so far share the same fundamental problem: they are "one-off" builds.
This means they are not upgradeable via Software Update and the build can be easily obsoleted by a subsequent Apple release. This combined with the fact that Joe User wouldn't touch this with a 10ft pole means that it can't really harm Apple very much. In fact, until it is truly hacked, OSx86 builds will probably contribute more to Apple sales than hurt them.
This means they are not upgradeable via Software Update and the build can be easily obsoleted by a subsequent Apple release. This combined with the fact that Joe User wouldn't touch this with a 10ft pole means that it can't really harm Apple very much. In fact, until it is truly hacked, OSx86 builds will probably contribute more to Apple sales than hurt them.
freeny
Oct 11, 08:09 AM
And the saga continues....
Apples new codec reading giving the ipod twice the play time on a battery charge does give a little backing to the story....
just release the damn thing already.
Apples new codec reading giving the ipod twice the play time on a battery charge does give a little backing to the story....
just release the damn thing already.
robbieduncan
Sep 26, 02:46 AM
Why would Apple logically develop a piece of software that uses the graphics card when I have four processors - many others have two - begging to be worked. I guess I never understood the logic of using Core Image to power this thing.
I think that's because you don't understand how CoreImage is meant to work (I'm not saying how it does work for you). When you write an ImageUnit to run in CoreImage you are not targeting a particular processor at all (be that CPU, GPU or some future co-processor). You write your code in a special language and it gets compiled into a kind of 50% compiled code. CoreImage will then run this on the GPU or any of the available CPUs using whichever it thinks will be fastest at that time.
You can read about it here (http://developer.apple.com/macosx/coreimage.html), see Parallel Execution around half way down.
I think that's because you don't understand how CoreImage is meant to work (I'm not saying how it does work for you). When you write an ImageUnit to run in CoreImage you are not targeting a particular processor at all (be that CPU, GPU or some future co-processor). You write your code in a special language and it gets compiled into a kind of 50% compiled code. CoreImage will then run this on the GPU or any of the available CPUs using whichever it thinks will be fastest at that time.
You can read about it here (http://developer.apple.com/macosx/coreimage.html), see Parallel Execution around half way down.
jclardy
May 3, 09:30 PM
just getting started...iPad 3!
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment