they test the new device over wifi which goes into the physical network at the apple campus. assume Apple is using NAT. at some point it's going to go to the internet and it will have to pass Apple's firewall and core router where it will pick up Apple's public IP for those devices.
admob or some other company that collects the metrics just needs to look at the public IP to see exactly where the traffic is coming from.
even if apple leased another IP range under a different name, the physical circuits still go into the Apple campus unless they have another secret lab somewhere
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
I don’t get his point at all. Because Apple chooses to make their own OS when Dell, HP et al. can’t or won’t, means that Apple now has to sell more PCs than the rest of the world’s PC market combined in order to be relevant? That makes no sense.
Did you even read what I wrote?
[Edit] Sorry, I see you wrote "his point". I guess you did read what I wrote, it was I who didn't read well...
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population. If you need proof the amount of advertising Apple does vs. units sold will tell you all you ever need to know. If people could afford Macs, they'd buy them. Slowly, the adoption rate is increasing, but we're still talking small chunks of market share.
The iPhone itself is $99 which makes it a major player. At $80/mon it carries a higher than average monthly bill for U.S. mobiles, but that trend is changing rapidly. The iPhone is properly price. Perhaps perfectly.
Macs, not so much. I'm still sitting at $1500 iMac, but I know how to get my money's worth from it. The average computer user would and could not.
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
Affordable is not something that should be based on what you personally have budgeted for a computer. If you have $50 to spend on a computer, there is no such thing as an affordable computer for you personally.
As for the affordability of Mac Pros, those machines are not intended for the general public. They offer far more expansion capacity and horsepower than your average consumer needs.
In regards to the Mini, yes you're right that peripherals are needed to complete the picture but that's about as expensive as your budget can afford. Keyboards and mice are dirt cheap in base form and so too are today's entry-level monitors. Most people wind up burning through their computers before they wear out mice, keyboards and especially monitors. My previous monitor lasted more than 10 years during which time I worked my way through three computers. I did add a Firewire 800 drive to my set-up recently but it cost a little more than $100 and added a terabyte of storage. I did last week splurge on a 24-inch Cinema Display but could just have easily spent a lot less and still had a decent enough monitor. But it's not like I need to replace the display every time I buy a new computer. 10 years from now I'll probably still be using that same monitor. Also, I traded in a Mini to buy the unit I have now and got a surprising amount for it. Low-cost PCs, within a couple of years have pretty much lost their resale value.
Computers are like cars in that there is the cost of making the initial purchase and then there's the long-term picture. Sure you can go out and buy a $300 netbook but where are you a year or two later. Is a MacBook costing three times more to buy really that bad a deal if it lasts at least three times longer, all the while providing superior performance?
Apple is in the business of selling in volume. The new tablet will no doubt be regarded as potentially a device that can be sold in the millions. Consider, for instance, how worried other manufacturers are about this product. At CES the upcoming tablet was the elephant in the room. Apple wasn't even there or had announced anything. Heck, Apple hadn't even sent out invitations to an event to announce anything.
If the report of this from multiple independent sources is correct, I suspect it will have fewer defects and omissions than you or I have thought.
If he really said that, those are not words to be taken lightly.
Of all the months of boring rumours, analysts belching and speculation, this is the only one that has made me think I might be interested in what happens on Wednesday.
To those who think it will run an iPhone interface/OS:
That isn?t necessarily true if you read the responses from people not in your ignore list. Sometimes it seems to much to resist when you assume that people aren?t here just to start a nonsense argument.
Why are you under the erroneous impression that Apple is trying to sell to every part of the PC market? Apple’s Macs are priced well for the market they are in. Dell and HP make machines that cost considerably more than other machines they sell, and often have less impressive specs in certain areas than these cheap machines. Can you imagine why?
By your argument any restaurant that doesn’t sell $69 burgers is not affordable? That a quality steak house is not affordable and can’t be successful if they sell premium Kobe steaks and/or focus on creating an experience for the diners? That simply doesn’t make sense. The number of food units they sell in comparison to the entire world has no baring on the product. Affordability is not even an issue. If you can afford a $400 notebook you can afford a $30 steak, but that doesn’t mean that you are going to.
I read this 5 times and have no idea what you just said.
By pricing their computers where they do, they make them available to certain percentage of the market and thus profit greatly off that small number of people. You think I don't get that? You think I didn't understand that when I began investing 10 years ago?
How anyone can think that unit sales are not important to Apple is beyond me...they are absolutely important. Its aggravating that Apple fanbois pretend that there is special percentage of people who need to get Online to whom Apple is concerned with pleasing.
It's 2010. No one cares what Apple wants to do. People want ONLINE and they want it cheap. Even professionals are not willing to dole out the same prices for machines that do not a lot more than what they did 5 years ago.
Recall the totally "unnecessary" price drops to the entire Laptop line in 2009? Or is that a distant memory?
Notice the increased adoption rate post price reduction? Best quarters ever? Hmm.
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
You have to give permission to use location. Secondly as far as IP, Geo location is concerned, Apple owns data centers and at that level you can do anything you want to set up tunneling to another data center. But in all likelihood if apple wanted to test applications they wouldn't use ones that called home. If the device was super secret they would set up duplicate versions of typical websites and run them on their own network never to show up in anyone's logs. Apple engineers have already thought of anything the people on this forum can come up with off the top of their head.
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population.
There's a significant difference between unjustifiable and unaffordable. A $150,000 Ferrari is unaffordable. A $2200 top end iCore 7 27" iMac is affordable. Whether you WANT to (justifiable) is a different issue.
At minimum wage, a high school kid flipping burgers can make $2200 (before taxes) in 8 weeks (40 hours) over the summer.
Quote:
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
If you're sweating to do any work on a computer you're using Linux and a freetard.
You have to give permission to use location. Secondly as far as IP, Geo location is concerned, Apple owns data centers and at that level you can do anything you want to set up tunneling to another data center. But in all likelihood if apple wanted to test applications they wouldn't use ones that called home. If the device was super secret they would set up duplicate versions of typical websites and run them on their own network never to show up in anyone's logs. Apple engineers have already thought of anything the people on this forum can come up with off the top of their head.
You have to give your permission if you want to use an app that depends on CoreLocation. Once you have given your permission to an app then the app will share your location to Flurry or similar services to determine your exact location as well. You only need to give your permission once per app and the app can use the location in anyway it wants. As far as I know the information will be sent out as long as there is an internet connection. I have developed few apps and get few hits from Cupertino on regular basis on my app webpage from time to time. I don't think Apple worries too much about such issues. It's a waste of time and money to do so.
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
Heh...I can just imagine some CoreLocation mode that places all the test units at Redmond or Mountain View for some real red herrings.
You have to give your permission if you want to use an app that depends on CoreLocation. [?]
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
I actually think this is one of the best hints thus far of what the tablet will be. An analytics company is not going to talk out of its ass to generate some page hits. No one is likely to trust their analytics collection to a company that just makes stuff up.
The interpretation of the data might be wrong but I assess the probability that they have that raw data to be quite high. But for all they know, the 3.2 testing might be unrelated.
On the other hand, it might also mean that the tablet will see sales sooner rather than later and the app approval process for the tablet is already in full swing.
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
Notebooks, maybe since they are out and about, but unlikely for desktops since they are often indoors and may not receive the GPS signal very well. Although I am surprised how well the iPhone GPS works indoors.
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
Snow Leopard have CoreLocation but no GPS. It works just like the iPod Touch using your WiFi. However, it won't work on places were Skyhook has no data. I hope we see GPS in MB/MBP too.
Comments
they test the new device over wifi which goes into the physical network at the apple campus. assume Apple is using NAT. at some point it's going to go to the internet and it will have to pass Apple's firewall and core router where it will pick up Apple's public IP for those devices.
admob or some other company that collects the metrics just needs to look at the public IP to see exactly where the traffic is coming from.
even if apple leased another IP range under a different name, the physical circuits still go into the Apple campus unless they have another secret lab somewhere
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
I don’t get his point at all. Because Apple chooses to make their own OS when Dell, HP et al. can’t or won’t, means that Apple now has to sell more PCs than the rest of the world’s PC market combined in order to be relevant? That makes no sense.
Did you even read what I wrote?
[Edit] Sorry, I see you wrote "his point". I guess you did read what I wrote, it was I who didn't read well...
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population. If you need proof the amount of advertising Apple does vs. units sold will tell you all you ever need to know. If people could afford Macs, they'd buy them. Slowly, the adoption rate is increasing, but we're still talking small chunks of market share.
The iPhone itself is $99 which makes it a major player. At $80/mon it carries a higher than average monthly bill for U.S. mobiles, but that trend is changing rapidly. The iPhone is properly price. Perhaps perfectly.
Macs, not so much. I'm still sitting at $1500 iMac, but I know how to get my money's worth from it. The average computer user would and could not.
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
Affordable is not something that should be based on what you personally have budgeted for a computer. If you have $50 to spend on a computer, there is no such thing as an affordable computer for you personally.
As for the affordability of Mac Pros, those machines are not intended for the general public. They offer far more expansion capacity and horsepower than your average consumer needs.
In regards to the Mini, yes you're right that peripherals are needed to complete the picture but that's about as expensive as your budget can afford. Keyboards and mice are dirt cheap in base form and so too are today's entry-level monitors. Most people wind up burning through their computers before they wear out mice, keyboards and especially monitors. My previous monitor lasted more than 10 years during which time I worked my way through three computers. I did add a Firewire 800 drive to my set-up recently but it cost a little more than $100 and added a terabyte of storage. I did last week splurge on a 24-inch Cinema Display but could just have easily spent a lot less and still had a decent enough monitor. But it's not like I need to replace the display every time I buy a new computer. 10 years from now I'll probably still be using that same monitor. Also, I traded in a Mini to buy the unit I have now and got a surprising amount for it. Low-cost PCs, within a couple of years have pretty much lost their resale value.
Computers are like cars in that there is the cost of making the initial purchase and then there's the long-term picture. Sure you can go out and buy a $300 netbook but where are you a year or two later. Is a MacBook costing three times more to buy really that bad a deal if it lasts at least three times longer, all the while providing superior performance?
Apple is in the business of selling in volume. The new tablet will no doubt be regarded as potentially a device that can be sold in the millions. Consider, for instance, how worried other manufacturers are about this product. At CES the upcoming tablet was the elephant in the room. Apple wasn't even there or had announced anything. Heck, Apple hadn't even sent out invitations to an event to announce anything.
My guess is that it will be great in multiple ways, but will have infuriating defects, omissions and lockdowns. Just like the iPhone.
Tech Crunch is reporting that Steve Jobs has been overheard saying of the Tablet - ?This will be the most important thing I?ve ever done?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/24...ost-important/
If the report of this from multiple independent sources is correct, I suspect it will have fewer defects and omissions than you or I have thought.
If he really said that, those are not words to be taken lightly.
Of all the months of boring rumours, analysts belching and speculation, this is the only one that has made me think I might be interested in what happens on Wednesday.
To those who think it will run an iPhone interface/OS:
.
Sure you do else you would not bother responding to him. Rather than clutter up the forums with posts such as this, do this -> http://forums.appleinsider.com/profi...?do=ignorelist
That isn?t necessarily true if you read the responses from people not in your ignore list. Sometimes it seems to much to resist when you assume that people aren?t here just to start a nonsense argument.
Why are you under the erroneous impression that Apple is trying to sell to every part of the PC market? Apple’s Macs are priced well for the market they are in. Dell and HP make machines that cost considerably more than other machines they sell, and often have less impressive specs in certain areas than these cheap machines. Can you imagine why?
By your argument any restaurant that doesn’t sell $69 burgers is not affordable? That a quality steak house is not affordable and can’t be successful if they sell premium Kobe steaks and/or focus on creating an experience for the diners? That simply doesn’t make sense. The number of food units they sell in comparison to the entire world has no baring on the product. Affordability is not even an issue. If you can afford a $400 notebook you can afford a $30 steak, but that doesn’t mean that you are going to.
I read this 5 times and have no idea what you just said.
By pricing their computers where they do, they make them available to certain percentage of the market and thus profit greatly off that small number of people. You think I don't get that? You think I didn't understand that when I began investing 10 years ago?
How anyone can think that unit sales are not important to Apple is beyond me...they are absolutely important. Its aggravating that Apple fanbois pretend that there is special percentage of people who need to get Online to whom Apple is concerned with pleasing.
It's 2010. No one cares what Apple wants to do. People want ONLINE and they want it cheap. Even professionals are not willing to dole out the same prices for machines that do not a lot more than what they did 5 years ago.
Recall the totally "unnecessary" price drops to the entire Laptop line in 2009? Or is that a distant memory?
Notice the increased adoption rate post price reduction? Best quarters ever? Hmm.
Damn some of you are dense.
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
You have to give permission to use location. Secondly as far as IP, Geo location is concerned, Apple owns data centers and at that level you can do anything you want to set up tunneling to another data center. But in all likelihood if apple wanted to test applications they wouldn't use ones that called home. If the device was super secret they would set up duplicate versions of typical websites and run them on their own network never to show up in anyone's logs. Apple engineers have already thought of anything the people on this forum can come up with off the top of their head.
We know their out there
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population.
There's a significant difference between unjustifiable and unaffordable. A $150,000 Ferrari is unaffordable. A $2200 top end iCore 7 27" iMac is affordable. Whether you WANT to (justifiable) is a different issue.
At minimum wage, a high school kid flipping burgers can make $2200 (before taxes) in 8 weeks (40 hours) over the summer.
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
If you're sweating to do any work on a computer you're using Linux and a freetard.
Excuse you, rude bastard.
Ahem!! That would be basterd.
Sorry couldn't resist.
You have to give permission to use location. Secondly as far as IP, Geo location is concerned, Apple owns data centers and at that level you can do anything you want to set up tunneling to another data center. But in all likelihood if apple wanted to test applications they wouldn't use ones that called home. If the device was super secret they would set up duplicate versions of typical websites and run them on their own network never to show up in anyone's logs. Apple engineers have already thought of anything the people on this forum can come up with off the top of their head.
You have to give your permission if you want to use an app that depends on CoreLocation. Once you have given your permission to an app then the app will share your location to Flurry or similar services to determine your exact location as well. You only need to give your permission once per app and the app can use the location in anyway it wants. As far as I know the information will be sent out as long as there is an internet connection. I have developed few apps and get few hits from Cupertino on regular basis on my app webpage from time to time. I don't think Apple worries too much about such issues. It's a waste of time and money to do so.
I know that. I was adding that Flurry and others offer developers a choice to determine the location using GPS as well. So even if Apple used some proxy or whatever they can still determine the location using CoreLocation, especially for apps that depends heavily on CoreLocation.
Heh...I can just imagine some CoreLocation mode that places all the test units at Redmond or Mountain View for some real red herrings.
You have to give your permission if you want to use an app that depends on CoreLocation. [?]
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
The interpretation of the data might be wrong but I assess the probability that they have that raw data to be quite high. But for all they know, the 3.2 testing might be unrelated.
On the other hand, it might also mean that the tablet will see sales sooner rather than later and the app approval process for the tablet is already in full swing.
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
Notebooks, maybe since they are out and about, but unlikely for desktops since they are often indoors and may not receive the GPS signal very well. Although I am surprised how well the iPhone GPS works indoors.
Heh...I can just imagine some CoreLocation mode that places all the test units at Redmond or Mountain View for some real red herrings.
Testing requires the units and OS to be unaltered from the intended final release. Otherwise, why would you want to test it?!
Testing requires the units and OS to be unaltered from the intended final release. Otherwise, why would you want to test it?!
That was a joke.
Segue? I hope the next Macs coem with GPS chips so CoreLocation can work with DashBoard Widgets, Safari (HTML5 Geo Location) and other apps. I find myself grabbing my iPhone even while using my Mac when looking up anything that requires a current location.
Snow Leopard have CoreLocation but no GPS. It works just like the iPod Touch using your WiFi. However, it won't work on places were Skyhook has no data. I hope we see GPS in MB/MBP too.
That was a joke.
I know. I thought I should answer it before someone take it seriously