or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macslut

@jragosta, Part of your problem here is that you're being incredibly narrow minding. You're only thinking about what you use the iPhone for and how you'd use the iPad. You asked "what multitasking would you need" not "why would I want multitasking'. Nobody here has argued that you would need, want or benefit from multitasking in any way. However, we have explained why we want multitasking in the OS, and even what we currently use it for. It's significant enough...
@jragosta;1571906, "You are incorrect - as usual in your incessant Apple-bashing." What the hell??? Did you even bother to look at my nickname? I rarely bash Apple, but I will point out where they could use some improvements especially when I've implemented a work around (jailbreak in this case) and vastly prefer the experience. "If your choice of games doesn't allow you to pause and resume, that's bad programming, not any limitation in the device." That's...
As someone who has jailbroken my iPhone in part so that I could enable multitasking, let me answer this. You've narrowly defined scenarios which can be done without multitasking. Try changing them:"You can have push notifications tell you if you've received a text message while you're playing a game." But you can't pause the game and respond to the text. Nor can you be one the phone while playing a game."You can listen to music while you read a book." Unless that music...
What's interesting is that if Apple does get to $280, it will have a market cap that's $9 billion more than Microsoft is today. Here are some comparison P/Es and Apple's isn't so bad: Apple: 19:58 Microsoft: 15.43 Amazon: 58.64 Adobe: 43.47 Dell: 18.72 Google: 26.21 HP: 15.46 IBM: 12.39 Intel: 26.64 SanDisk: 15.06 Comcast: 12.18 AT&T: 11.86 Verizon: 22.54 Exxon: 16.34 Boeing: 32.48 Wal-Mart: 15.32 UPS: 26.17 Starbucks: 30.01 Another way of looking at Apple's 19.58 P/E is...
This is total BS, and a great example of the problem with software patents. I remember Emblaze. I worked with them quite a bit in the mid-late 90s. Their technology at the time was "neat" in a way, but severely lacking for mass usage. They had several products related to audio, video and animation that were easy to use before Flash became dominate and enabled some of this. There was a benefit to firewall-proof HTTP streaming, but not that it did a lot of good at...
That's just it. Fujitsu does not have a registered trademark. They filed for a trademark and it became published for opposition on September 1, 2009. The key point here is that Apple was going to oppose this anyway. And rightfully so. It's not that Apple owns iEverything now, but that iPad and the device it describes in the filing is far too close and likely to cause confusion with the trademarked iPod. Don't expect to be able to market anything like an iPod with the...
Monday, January 25, 2010:Earnings announcement (best quarter ever) Tuesday, January 26, 2010:New Core 2010 MacBooks Wednesday, January 27, 2010Tablet iWork X iLife X iPhone OS 4 Expect iWork and iLife to have iPhone OS 4 versions. Also expect a PhotoShop/Illustrator-lite like app. Thursday, January 28, 2010Apple's stock drops. Post rumor speculation depression kicks in. Complaints about Tablet lacking a replaceable battery and pricing overwhelm the...
Perhaps missing the obvious... Apple could allow items in ads to be purchased through the customer's iTune account.
I'm happy to see them doing this since it makes it quick and easy as well as raising awareness, but I was extremely disappointed to see that you can't donate money from your iTunes account. I get lots of iTunes gift cards from people I do business with, and have money just sitting in my account waiting to spend. I was hoping to donate all of it, but I can't. It needs to be charged to a credit card. I hope Apple can change this. (In the meantime, I've already...
It is illegal however to pay someone to violate an NDA. The site did say, "void where prohibited by law", but I don't think this was clear, and the spirit of the contest seemed like they were provoking people to violate NDAs. That said, it was a good gimmick, and if they wanted to do it right, they would've listed as a condition that they would not pay for someone to violate an NDA or break the law. And if the past is any indication, this may be possible. I was in a...
New Posts  All Forums: