"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 great that you have a game that allows pause and resume after quitting. Not all do, and there are many instances of apps where there are reasons why they don't just resume. In many cases it has to do with configuring resources. One example of this would be apps that configure based on location and updates on a server. Relaunching the app can take a very long time, but on a jailbroken phone, you can simply exit the app and come back. This may include games, but also navigation apps and so forth.
"However, the device has the ability to listen to music while reading a book as supplied by Apple. If you choose not to use the method provided, that's your choice - so you will be responsible for the limitations that YOU create."
This is another "what the hell?" kind of comment. Ok, under the rules of the game that you've created wherein the goal post can move however far you'd like it to be. You're right. There's no reason any human on the planet would ever have any reason whatsoever to ever possibly multitask in any situation on any computer. Are you happy now?
However, in the real world, I'd like to be able to use my iPhone within the capabilities that it *does* have, but Apple has chosen to limit, specifically, I use my iPhone all the time to listen to radio stations all over the world while at the same time using other apps. Since Apple doesn't provide a radio service app like Pandora or FM radio, then I need to use a 3rd party app and multitasking gives me this ability.
[being able to see two apps at the same time]
"Where in the world do you dream up this stuff? There's nothing stopping you from having an email message open, switch to the web, and then switch back. That doesn't require multitasking and works just fine on the iPhone."
Wow. Someone else posted the same point as me using different words and you still don't get it. Are you using a Mac or PC now...or ever? Next time that you do, look at the application you're using. Do you see any other applications on your screen? Probably, right? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft or anyone else automatically hide all other apps (and not give you a choice)? Because it can be useful to be able to *see* what's being displayed in one app while working in another. The iPhone's screen is too small for that...sort of (although SBSettings and others show alternatives), but the iPad *is* large enough to allow multi-app display. What a shame to have an email, document or whatever with a whole bunch of numbers scattered through paragraphs and having to constantly switch between that and the calculator for no real reason.
"FTP isn't going to be relevant on the iPhone. If you're thinking FTP, get a laptop."
You will do this. You won't do that! Therefore you don't need this. You must get a laptop!
Not relevant? Take a look at all the FTP apps or similar to FTP apps already in the iTunes Store. I use FTP On The Go all the time. It's a $7 app and it has over 200 4/5 star ratings.
Why do I *need* this? Because I often have to move files around from servers and do other admin type work. I can be anywhere with cell or wifi connectivity and do this *without* a laptop. I always have my iPhone with me wherever I am.
You want to define *need* a little better than, "you don't need this, you can use a laptop"?
"I can download my mail and download app upgrades while doing something else already. Why would you think that you couldn't do it with the iPad? I guess the problem is that you never bothered finding out what was possible and what wasn't before you started on your mindless attacks."
That's cute. YOU only do little stuff like "download email" and have never bothered finding out what was possible, so you went on to pose a question, move the goal posts and then attack yourself. I wasn't talking about downloading email and app upgrades, I was talking about any number of file downloads from 3rd party apps. Again, you're right. You and my grandma don't *need* multitasking.
You and my grandma have no need for the following, but many if not most would find some of the following to be useful:
View 2 3rd party apps at the same time
Use 3rd party apps to listen to the radio while using other apps*
Switch between 3rd party apps without having to have them relaunch
Allow 3rd party apps to download files in the background
*I take that back, even my grandma does this on her jailbroken iPhone.
So you're talking about saving 1/20 second. Instead of toggling to another app, you hit the home button and THEN the other app. Given the overhead that multitasking and having multiple apps open at the same time, that would probably take MORE time than the current method.
What BS. Can you provide data to show it's 1/20th of a second? If you can't, retract your statement.
Obviously you've never used an iPhone or an iPod Touch, or if you have, you must have just the main screen beyond which you have not graduated.
There is one other possibility: the opportunity cost of your time must be quite low, or you don't do a lot of meetings/presentations.
What 'overhead' are you talking about? It's a word that makes no sense in this context (unless you'd like to explain).
The way I see as best is to make this an API in v4.0 that lets the developers decide with of their apps and which of the functions in their apps will be able to run the background. The entire time following Apple's guidelines for resource usage.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Since there's little or no real benefit, why make the customers suffer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
That's great that you have a game that allows pause and resume after quitting. Not all do, and there are many instances of apps where there are reasons why they don't just resume. In many cases it has to do with configuring resources. One example of this would be apps that configure based on location and updates on a server. Relaunching the app can take a very long time, but on a jailbroken phone, you can simply exit the app and come back. This may include games, but also navigation apps and so forth.
The iPad supports games quitting and coming back to the same point - which negates your claim that it's not possible.
As for the rest, 'apps that configure based on location and updates on a server' isn't very useful. What, exactly, do you want the iPhone to do that requires mulitasking? So far, you haven't given a single thing other than examples that were easily refuted and mumbo-jumbo.
AND, you need to show that any minor advantage that you can come up with is worth the additional RAM and CPU usage that it takes up. So far, you haven't given a single example that carries water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
This is another "what the hell?" kind of comment. Ok, under the rules of the game that you've created wherein the goal post can move however far you'd like it to be. You're right. There's no reason any human on the planet would ever have any reason whatsoever to ever possibly multitask in any situation on any computer. Are you happy now?
However, in the real world, I'd like to be able to use my iPhone within the capabilities that it *does* have, but Apple has chosen to limit, specifically, I use my iPhone all the time to listen to radio stations all over the world while at the same time using other apps. Since Apple doesn't provide a radio service app like Pandora or FM radio, then I need to use a 3rd party app and multitasking gives me this ability.
You can tell you've lost the argument when you make things up and pretend the other person said them (it's called a 'straw man argument'. I never said that NO computer could EVER need multitasking. Obviously, on a desktop computer it has value. Even on a laptop, it has value. But the iPad IS NOT A LAPTOP and has a different function. The iPad has a certain function and design. The fact that you can hack it to do something different doesn't mean that Apple should do so. You can play music while reading a book - which is what I said. The fact that you can't do it with your particular application is irrelevant to anyone but you.
[being able to see two apps at the same time]
"Where in the world do you dream up this stuff? There's nothing stopping you from having an email message open, switch to the web, and then switch back. That doesn't require multitasking and works just fine on the iPhone."
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
Wow. Someone else posted the same point as me using different words and you still don't get it. Are you using a Mac or PC now...or ever? Next time that you do, look at the application you're using. Do you see any other applications on your screen? Probably, right? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft or anyone else automatically hide all other apps (and not give you a choice)? Because it can be useful to be able to *see* what's being displayed in one app while working in another. The iPhone's screen is too small for that...sort of (although SBSettings and others show alternatives), but the iPad *is* large enough to allow multi-app display. What a shame to have an email, document or whatever with a whole bunch of numbers scattered through paragraphs and having to constantly switch between that and the calculator for no real reason.
Once again, you really need to get one concept through your thick skull. THE IPAD IS NOT A LAPTOP. IT IS NOT A FULL-SERVICE COMPUTER. Its screen will not support 10 apps all being displayed at the same time and even if it would, that complicates the UI enough to defeat the primary purpose of the iPad.
It's not the iPad's fault that you want it to be something it's not. Heck, I'd like it to wake up in the morning and scramble eggs for me, too. But that's not what it's supposed to be, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
You will do this. You won't do that! Therefore you don't need this. You must get a laptop!
Not relevant? Take a look at all the FTP apps or similar to FTP apps already in the iTunes Store. I use FTP On The Go all the time. It's a $7 app and it has over 200 4/5 star ratings.
Why do I *need* this? Because I often have to move files around from servers and do other admin type work. I can be anywhere with cell or wifi connectivity and do this *without* a laptop. I always have my iPhone with me wherever I am.
You want to define *need* a little better than, "you don't need this, you can use a laptop"?
Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really no brighter than a 3 year old? The iPad is NOT a laptop replacement. It's a media presentation device with thin client capabilities. It's not meant to do everything that a laptop does. The fact that you've hacked the iPhone to do some things doesn't mean the iPad should do them.
YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE. Repeat that until it sinks in - 50,000 times if necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
That's cute. YOU only do little stuff like "download email" and have never bothered finding out what was possible, so you went on to pose a question, move the goal posts and then attack yourself. I wasn't talking about downloading email and app upgrades, I was talking about any number of file downloads from 3rd party apps. Again, you're right. You and my grandma don't *need* multitasking.
You and my grandma have no need for the following, but many if not most would find some of the following to be useful:
View 2 3rd party apps at the same time
Use 3rd party apps to listen to the radio while using other apps*
Switch between 3rd party apps without having to have them relaunch
Allow 3rd party apps to download files in the background
Who's moving the goal posts? You said that the iPad wouldn't download while you did something else. I gave a couple of examples that prove you wrong.
And, once again, it's not designed to be a laptop replacement. The fact that YOU don't have the intellect to understand that isn't a failing of the product.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Since there's little or no real benefit, why make the customers suffer?
I have a jailbroken iPhone. I use Backgrounder. I am very familiar with how much resources background apps use.
Many, if not most, apps don't use enough enough resources to affect the foreground app or the user experience. Of course, you keep piling on apps in the way the "just give us background apps like Android/WebOS" crowd wants it then you do start running into problem.
Hence, my balanced compromise for an API that allows the developer to set up the background process akin to Push Notifications, Apple's guidelines for background resource usage, the OS' limitation on background apps depending on iDevice model, and the user's deliberate execution of this option. Only the very last part involves the user and it's not on by default.
Customer's only suffer if it's done with due process or forethought, like with Android and WebOS. If you look at the iPhone 3GS' RAM you see there is plenty for most apps to be able to remain in the background without affecting other apps. The original and 3G can't say the same thing and will likely never get official backgrounding. Backgrounding was a pain on them because of the paltry 128MB RAM, half of which is used by the OS itself.
If you've owned every phone you'd know that the 3GS is the first iPhone that doesn't skip when using the iPod while using other apps or require Safari page reloads because you jumped into Mail for a second.
Anything is possible in a world economy where almost every day there is another country, or company that is "discovered" to be in such dire straights they have to be rescued, usually at the expense of the taxpayer ..... and save your rants against the left or right because we are ALL to blame for this mess ... by ignoring the writing on the wall and believing it was our right to live beyond our means based solely on where we were lucky enough to be born.
The volatility in the stock market, I think, just reflects how bad the system is broke and unfortunately Apple, and a lot of other good companies, are only being taken along for the ride. IMHO, caution is the word of the day ... when participating in the stock market now.
Well, my guess is that the worst is over, ya know, in fact I doubt wee will be seeing too much of sub $200 even. There will be enough 'good news' to keep AAPL loft for quite a while I personally think.
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 of a feature that people have risked their warranties, gone through the effort of developing the feature and others have adopted the hack. There are a large number of people who have jailbroken their iPhones and enabling multitasking is always high on the lists that I've seen for reasons people give for doing so.
Watch, eventually there will be multitasking on the iPhone...where will your argument stand then? I'm imagining you'll disappear or at best say that "now the iPhone has the hardware capable of doing it", but we, who are doing it now, are telling you that the iPhone does it just fine when enabled.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Many...most don't. And it wouldn't be hard for Apple to only approve background functionality for apps that don't use X amount of RAM or CPU cycles in the background.
The iPad supports games quitting and coming back to the same point - which negates your claim that it's not possible.
That's not the argument. It's not a question of whether or not a game or app can save the state and then reload it when the app is relaunched, it's a question of whether or not things change in the state when the app is relaunched. Location, server data, time, and lots of metadata can change making relaunching an app a long process due to having to check on all of the status, and in some cases getting permission to do so.
AND, you need to show that any minor advantage that you can come up with is worth the additional RAM and CPU usage that it takes up. So far, you haven't given a single example that carries water.
Running my newsreader in the background takes up 20MB . Listening to KROQ out of Los Angeles is taking up less than 30MB. Right now I'm listening to KROQ, downloading a file and have my newsreader updating and I'm not getting any lag and have 120MB of free RAM. What's the "not worth it" part? While doing all of this, a good chunk of my iPhone is still not even being used. Oh, and during this time I got a text message and a call that I let go through to voicemail.
You can tell you've lost the argument when you make things up and pretend the other person said them (it's called a 'straw man argument'. I never said that NO computer could EVER need multitasking.
It's called exaggerating to make the point that you're going to argue things you don't know about and not accept anything someone presents to you as proof that you're wrong. You'll just keep moving the goal posts.
You can play music while reading a book - which is what I said. The fact that you can't do it with your particular application is irrelevant to anyone but you.
No, you asked why one would need multitasking. I pointed out that you narrowly defined the scenario. Nobody said you can't listen to music, as a matter of fact I specifically mentioned "Unless that music is coming from a 3rd party app, like a radio based app." It's not "my particular app"; it's the any number of radio and other music apps that do quite well on Apple's store, but people find annoying when they can't run them in the background. Sorry, you have to stop the 3rd party music app to check email! Who wants that?
Its screen will not support 10 apps all being displayed at the same time and even if it would, that complicates the UI enough to defeat the primary purpose of the iPad.
It doesn't need to display 10 apps. Just 2 would be helpful. The iPad has a larger size and resolution display than the Classic Mac. That was capable of displaying multiple apps. Again, even the iPhone has work arounds for this.
It's not the iPad's fault that you want it to be something it's not. Heck, I'd like it to wake up in the morning and scramble eggs for me, too. But that's not what it's supposed to be, either.
The difference is that the iPad isn't physically able to do this. The iPhone and iPad are quite capable of multitasking.
Who's moving the goal posts? You said that the iPad wouldn't download while you did something else. I gave a couple of examples that prove you wrong.
No, I gave specific examples such as FTP and 3rd party apps that download media files. Your examples suck. Being able to "download email" doesn't help me when I need to download or upload a file via FTP (or other examples) and don't want to keep the app active the entire time I'm doing so.
You sound a lot like the people who asked about 3rd party apps. If you need to listen to music you have the iPod app, you don't need anything else. Well, now there are tons of apps and lots of people buy them.
Are the radio apps in the iTunes not valid, not worthy, or have not shown traction/market acceptance? How could you possibly argue that those radio apps don't work better with multitasking enabled, unless you're purposely trying to be ignorant.
Again, YOU asked the question. Why do people need multitasking? You don't want to accept or can't understand the answers. That's fine. The summary is that people use multitasking on the iPhone today on jailbroken iPhones to do things that you're to novice to do...or for that matter even understand.
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 is coming from a 3rd party app, like a radio based app.
Can you play a game at the same time as you browse the web?
Hell yes you can. You're in the middle of a game and want to search for a cheat code, tip or trick, it's nice to be able to do it with the device as opposed to going over to another computer to look it up.
And with the iPad, there will be numerous situations where you'll want to see both apps at the same time. Maybe you're composing a message but you want to reference something else you want to be able to see. The space limitations on the iPhone prevent this, but it could otherwise be done on the iPad if it wasn't for the lack of multitasking.
Another huge thing is to have apps run in the background...doing things while you're doing something else. Music apps are an obvious example of this, but there are apps that transfer files, like FTP apps, or media download apps. You can sit there and watch the file download over a long period of time, or you could have it be done in the background while you're doing anything else you want to do.
I have an RSS reader. In the background, it can download all of my feeds and cache them so I can read them when I have no connectivity. I don't want push notifications for each news item, I just want to be able to read them whenever I want without having to actively watch them download or be somewhere where I have connectivity.
Multitasking on a jailbroken iPhone works flawlessly for me and others. It's a shame that it's not enabled in the OS for 3rd party apps yet.
I agree that most analysts go way overboard in one direction or another. I always ask if these analysts are so clairvoyant why didn't they all predict the market in 2008 and then again the great performance in 2009?
IN any case, Apple continues to be a company that is innovative, creative growth company that continues to buck the trend on sales in the present economy.
Today, Apple stock closed at just over $200 at $200.38. So let's assume that Apple's stock price goes up what it went up in 2009, then on or about 1/1/2011 the price of aapl would be up 146.9% from 12/31/2009's price ($210.73) and it would be at $520.29!
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
So let's assume only 50% growth in the stock price and then it would be at $315 on 1/1/2011 - that still sounds crazy but it is only 50% growth in a dynamic stock from a company capable of big and quick growth.
Even only 10% percent growth in the stock - which sounds absurdly low - would raise aapl stock to about $231 which many of you can't even begin to imagine - why is that?
I would certainly hope (and actually believe) that aapl stock will be at somewhere between $230 and $315. Sure you say that sounds like I made a safe bet with a big range like that - but then again most of you refuse to admit that it is possible. I think it is probable.
Review aapl's stock performance for the last 10 years
Through 2/12/2010
10 year average +22.2% per year (through 1/10/2010)
5 year average +37.6% per year
3 year average +33,2% per year
1 Year +101.9%
3 months -0.8%
1 month -3.5%
YTD -4.9%
So why can't you believe that in a year, aapl will be up quite a bit, perhaps even only its 10-year average of 22% which would put it at about $240 - $250 which sounds very reasonable looking at the big picture.
Why would anyone try to predict iPad sales 10 years from now especially when the product hasn't been released yet?
there is a saying ...
Everyone over-estimates what can be done in the long term and under-estimates what can be done in the short term.
think about this.
In the 1960s the predictions were for us to be flying around wearing jet packs by the year 2000? Where are those? Yet 10 years ago no one would have predicted the iPod.
In any case, my prediction is that Mac sales will never get higher than perhaps 15% before nose diving back to about 2% and then shortly there after zero - all within the next 10 years. The iPad or some other device will replace them all. Laptops will no longer exist either. Everything will be smaller mobile devices AND all-in-one entertainment/communication units at home and in business. no more Macs. no more PCs.
Well, my guess is that the worst is over, ya know, in fact I doubt wee will be seeing too much of sub $200 even. There will be enough 'good news' to keep AAPL loft for quite a while I personally think.
I'd like to be as positive as you but until I see governments all over the world stop printing money out of thin air and/or trying to borrow their way out of debt (which doesn't work for anybody, but we still keep trying) .... and see society as a whole being more responsible re: finances I'm still waiting for the "other shoe to drop". I think the May to July period will be, as they say ... very interesting.
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
You'd do just as well ask who would have predicted that AAPL would drop more than 50% in three months in 2008 even as earnings grew. A much simpler method of determining the stock's potential would be to consider the stock price if it returned to a multiple of earnings closer to its historical average over periods of similar earnings growth during the past five years, between 30 and 40. A return to even to the low end of that range is a price of $300.
I agree that most analysts go way overboard in one direction or another. I always ask if these analysts are so clairvoyant why didn't they all predict the market in 2008 and then again the great performance in 2009?
IN any case, Apple continues to be a company that is innovative, creative growth company that continues to buck the trend on sales in the present economy.
Today, Apple stock closed at just over $200 at $200.38. So let's assume that Apple's stock price goes up what it went up in 2009, then on or about 1/1/2011 the price of aapl would be up 146.9% from 12/31/2009's price ($210.73) and it would be at $520.29!
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
So let's assume only 50% growth in the stock price and then it would be at $315 on 1/1/2011 - that still sounds crazy but it is only 50% growth in a dynamic stock from a company capable of big and quick growth.
Even only 10% percent growth in the stock - which sounds absurdly low - would raise aapl stock to about $231 which many of you can't even begin to imagine - why is that?
I would certainly hope (and actually believe) that aapl stock will be at somewhere between $230 and $315. Sure you say that sounds like I made a safe bet with a big range like that - but then again most of you refuse to admit that it is possible. I think it is probable.
sorry
but your wrong wrong
appl took a world wide hit when the markets crashed
from 180 ish to 100 ish
has now only gone back to 200 range from 16 month ago or so
apple has sold very well in a bad market
and many large investors lost so much on other stocks they haver to sell aapl to take insane profits off the table , THIS makes for wild swings in stock price
also is frozen for 2 months w/ the ipad launch wait .
investors can always buy back in late march so why hold it with no upside and a possible downside
all things considered including foreign markets being on fire for anything
bodes well for apple to quickly pass 250 275 300 ranges
has four strong lines that all will sell in the BN's in 2012
apple has over 300 stores in 2012 that also sell many other high profit items
has the best web site in the world which also sells 3 rd party items
itunes // app store also will start to make a lot of money by 2015
apple also will sell a smaller cheaper no contract phone soon
a carrier less <<MVNO >> nano video phone and or a nano wrist watch video phone .. AND by 2014 sales of 200 million a yr by 2017 is possible
apple at $500. in 2013-4 is a no brainer at apple s PE 36 X
I'd be interested in hearing what your definition is.
<<<stupidest post ?? really ?? >>>
please look at the start back in the 1990'a exactly what multi tasking and multi threading is
and every apple device since 2002 had multi tasked in the back ground
my 2009 160 g classic ipod can play a song and play a game while updating or sync ing content .
that is not multi tasking . or is it ??
your simple examples are so easy for any device made 10 yrs ago to handle
and again your device already multi tasks in the back ground \\
true multi tasking would be say talking on the phone while searching goggle earth for a rare bird location while playing vortex game in between breaks of the first two while going in and out of the 3g net work . and a second CALL arrives and instructs you to DL from the net a RAW tiff photo
render and change the photo in aperture <<open email app >>>and then re send in broad cast mode the said photo to 300 clients . your device would multi thread multi task all these items at the same time //some items would slow to a crawl some would speed up and drop out .
DO this for 3 hrs and then call me
your example s are a media creation of what they think is multi
APPLE will not drain its batteries
so your easy to do examples are possible 7 yrs ago
my MBP3.02HGz can handle this for a while
any smart phone in the world would crash and or lose its charge very quick
apple at $500. in 2013-4 is a no brainer at apple s PE 36 X
buy appl
sell goog
sell sbux
buy gm
long live SJ
peace 9
Actually, perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree almost completely with you (my only difference is I think Ford (F) is a much better buy than GM and I did buy a bunch a year ago).
My overall point was that there are two many people who a doom and gloomers about Apple but if they would just check the record one would see that Apple has done very well over the last 10 years and they are in a much better situation today then they ever have been.
So I decided to just take a conservative view of Apple and say suppose the stock increased by only 20% this year then the stock would be at about $230+. While that seems high (there are not many $200+ stocks out there), it isn't based on where aapl was on 12/31/2009 and is today. Getting higher than that is also not far fetched either.
Certainly, as you point out, other factors can affect any increases to aapl such as the 2008 worldwide sell off of equities. aapl was not immune to that so those who note that Apple dropped quickly should realize that was beyond their doing.
Also aapl is a stock that is manipulated for certain. I have played it expecting it to do quick drops of $10 in either direction over a week or month period of time.
Thanks for your rebuttal but we think the same or similarly.
Actually, perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree almost completely with you (my only difference is I think Ford (F) is a much better buy than GM and I did buy a bunch a year ago).
My overall point was that there are two many people who a doom and gloomers about Apple but if they would just check the record one would see that Apple has done very well over the last 10 years and they are in a much better situation today then they ever have been.
So I decided to just take a conservative view of Apple and say suppose the stock increased by only 20% this year then the stock would be at about $230+. While that seems high (there are not many $200+ stocks out there), it isn't based on where aapl was on 12/31/2009 and is today. Getting higher than that is also not far fetched either.
The number of stocks selling above $200 is utterly irrelevant to anything. It is of no consequence whatsoever. Your "conservative view" is also completely meaningless, since stocks are not valued in the way you suggest, not even slightly, remotely, or the least bit. In short, this is about the most uneducated analysis I have ever seen.
As for "manipulation" -- this is utter poppycock. AAPL is a very volatile stock, always has been, always will be. A $10 change is not a big one for AAPL if only because it happens all the time, and this only 5% of the current stock price.
We're over here talking about multitasking in the context of being able to run more than one app on the iPhone at the same time, which the iPhone can do, but Apple doesn't allow multitasking with 3rd party apps. You have to jailbreak to do the examples of multitasking that I listed.
"your simple examples are so easy for any device made 10 yrs ago to handle and again your device already multi tasks in the back ground "
Really? 10 years ago you could run any 3rd party streaming radio app while navigating on Google Maps? Because you can't do that today on an iPhone without jailbreaking.
"true multi tasking would be say talking..."
That's great, try submitting that to Wikipedia or any other source that provides definition or information and see what response they come back with.
I don't know what you think the point was of your comment here. Nobody is asking or expecting Apple to enable the impossible as you suggest. We're just asking Apple to enable the functionality of multitasking with 3rd party apps in the OS because many of us have done so ourselves with jailbroken iPhones and found the experience to be significantly better.
We're over here talking about multitasking in the context of being able to run more than one app on the iPhone at the same time, which the iPhone can do, but Apple doesn't allow multitasking with 3rd party apps.
That isn't quite accurate. Apple doesn't allow App Store apps to run in the background, which includes their growing number of 1st-party App Store apps.
Quote:
I don't know what you think the point was of your comment here. Nobody is asking or expecting Apple to enable the impossible as you suggest. We're just asking Apple to enable the functionality of multitasking with 3rd party apps in the OS because many of us have done so ourselves with jailbroken iPhones and found the experience to be significantly better.
You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished. Just saying that they should implement it because you can do it with a jailbroken app isn't a good argument. You've failed to list any issues of how this could be a problem for Apple and their customers, and ways they could combat these problems to make backgrounding a useful option for even the most technically inept iDevice user.
Without thinking it through it's a complete failure of an argument. For example, do you recall the MagicPad developer, Zac White, who made and app that allowed copy/paste long before Apple added it in v3.0? He also created a video explaining what Apple would have to do to make copy/paste for the iPhone OS and why the logistics would be considerably more difficult for Apple and therefore take much longer to build.
That isn't quite accurate. Apple doesn't allow App Store apps to run in the background, which includes their growing number of 1st-party App Store apps.
You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished....
Best post yet on the subject!!!
You're right, it doesn't include a growing number of 1st party apps. One in particular is the Apple Remote app. I use this all the time at my house and it used to drive me nuts (before I jailbroke) that I had to relaunch, reconnect, reload the app just to do anything if I had been in another app.
"You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished."
True, but that hasn't been the focus of the debate. It's been about whether or not there was a need for it.
Here's how I would accomplish it:
First, let me say that the jailbroken method isn't that bad. It works very well for most who were savvy enough to enable it in the first place. Still I admit just like your example of copy & paste, the jailbroken solution isn't as elegant as what Apple could do with their own implementation.
Take a look at how multitasking (cooperative) was implemented on the Mac with System 6. It was an option, and was something that advanced "power" users were capable of enabling. The interface for it wasn't fully fleshed out and all of the FUD about it then existed as well (except for battery life).
Apple could do the same with the iPhone OS. Enable it as an option in the Settings App. Provide a warning that it could drain the battery and slow things down.
The interface for enabling individual apps to run in the background could function just as the jailbroken methods demonstrate today, although I could see Apple doing a few things better. I would very much like to see Apple incorporate a dashboard like SBSettings, that's another subject, but from a dashboard app switching, app closing, and usage info could be displayed just like it can now with SBSettings.
One more thing like System 6. Not all apps would be background enable-able. Apple could set up some mechanism for doing this. Developers could simply set the flag to enable or not, and then upon submission to the store, Apple could check and see how resource intensive an app is when running and if it exceeds the published guidelines, it wouldn't be approved.
Additionally, 3rd party apps would get lowest nice priority. Looking back to Apple's cooperative multitasking days, when resources become constrained, the dashboard could pop down automatically and alert as well as provide the interface there and then to quit an app (showing the amount of resources for each).
As far as battery life... This has already been figured out by jailbreakers. There are times when you want an app to keep running in standby mode (streaming radio when plugged in) and times you want background apps to go idle (games) again, this isn't hard at all for the developer to either know what the app should do (and be approved by the store as verification), or for the app to have both a setting and alert (like the streaming radio app would have).
Now the above may sound complicated, but it's really not. All of the major stuff above is already present, and working well in many jailbroken iPhones. Additionally, for all of the people who think multitasking is the tool of Satan, they'd be completely unaffected by this because they'd be far too scared to ever think about enabling it in the Settings app.
Comments
"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 great that you have a game that allows pause and resume after quitting. Not all do, and there are many instances of apps where there are reasons why they don't just resume. In many cases it has to do with configuring resources. One example of this would be apps that configure based on location and updates on a server. Relaunching the app can take a very long time, but on a jailbroken phone, you can simply exit the app and come back. This may include games, but also navigation apps and so forth.
"However, the device has the ability to listen to music while reading a book as supplied by Apple. If you choose not to use the method provided, that's your choice - so you will be responsible for the limitations that YOU create."
This is another "what the hell?" kind of comment. Ok, under the rules of the game that you've created wherein the goal post can move however far you'd like it to be. You're right. There's no reason any human on the planet would ever have any reason whatsoever to ever possibly multitask in any situation on any computer. Are you happy now?
However, in the real world, I'd like to be able to use my iPhone within the capabilities that it *does* have, but Apple has chosen to limit, specifically, I use my iPhone all the time to listen to radio stations all over the world while at the same time using other apps. Since Apple doesn't provide a radio service app like Pandora or FM radio, then I need to use a 3rd party app and multitasking gives me this ability.
[being able to see two apps at the same time]
"Where in the world do you dream up this stuff? There's nothing stopping you from having an email message open, switch to the web, and then switch back. That doesn't require multitasking and works just fine on the iPhone."
Wow. Someone else posted the same point as me using different words and you still don't get it. Are you using a Mac or PC now...or ever? Next time that you do, look at the application you're using. Do you see any other applications on your screen? Probably, right? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft or anyone else automatically hide all other apps (and not give you a choice)? Because it can be useful to be able to *see* what's being displayed in one app while working in another. The iPhone's screen is too small for that...sort of (although SBSettings and others show alternatives), but the iPad *is* large enough to allow multi-app display. What a shame to have an email, document or whatever with a whole bunch of numbers scattered through paragraphs and having to constantly switch between that and the calculator for no real reason.
"FTP isn't going to be relevant on the iPhone. If you're thinking FTP, get a laptop."
You will do this. You won't do that! Therefore you don't need this. You must get a laptop!
Not relevant? Take a look at all the FTP apps or similar to FTP apps already in the iTunes Store. I use FTP On The Go all the time. It's a $7 app and it has over 200 4/5 star ratings.
Why do I *need* this? Because I often have to move files around from servers and do other admin type work. I can be anywhere with cell or wifi connectivity and do this *without* a laptop. I always have my iPhone with me wherever I am.
You want to define *need* a little better than, "you don't need this, you can use a laptop"?
"I can download my mail and download app upgrades while doing something else already. Why would you think that you couldn't do it with the iPad? I guess the problem is that you never bothered finding out what was possible and what wasn't before you started on your mindless attacks."
That's cute. YOU only do little stuff like "download email" and have never bothered finding out what was possible, so you went on to pose a question, move the goal posts and then attack yourself. I wasn't talking about downloading email and app upgrades, I was talking about any number of file downloads from 3rd party apps. Again, you're right. You and my grandma don't *need* multitasking.
You and my grandma have no need for the following, but many if not most would find some of the following to be useful:
View 2 3rd party apps at the same time
Use 3rd party apps to listen to the radio while using other apps*
Switch between 3rd party apps without having to have them relaunch
Allow 3rd party apps to download files in the background
*I take that back, even my grandma does this on her jailbroken iPhone.
So you're talking about saving 1/20 second. Instead of toggling to another app, you hit the home button and THEN the other app. Given the overhead that multitasking and having multiple apps open at the same time, that would probably take MORE time than the current method.
What BS. Can you provide data to show it's 1/20th of a second? If you can't, retract your statement.
Obviously you've never used an iPhone or an iPod Touch, or if you have, you must have just the main screen beyond which you have not graduated.
There is one other possibility: the opportunity cost of your time must be quite low, or you don't do a lot of meetings/presentations.
What 'overhead' are you talking about? It's a word that makes no sense in this context (unless you'd like to explain).
The way I see as best is to make this an API in v4.0 that lets the developers decide with of their apps and which of the functions in their apps will be able to run the background. The entire time following Apple's guidelines for resource usage.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Since there's little or no real benefit, why make the customers suffer?
That's great that you have a game that allows pause and resume after quitting. Not all do, and there are many instances of apps where there are reasons why they don't just resume. In many cases it has to do with configuring resources. One example of this would be apps that configure based on location and updates on a server. Relaunching the app can take a very long time, but on a jailbroken phone, you can simply exit the app and come back. This may include games, but also navigation apps and so forth.
The iPad supports games quitting and coming back to the same point - which negates your claim that it's not possible.
As for the rest, 'apps that configure based on location and updates on a server' isn't very useful. What, exactly, do you want the iPhone to do that requires mulitasking? So far, you haven't given a single thing other than examples that were easily refuted and mumbo-jumbo.
AND, you need to show that any minor advantage that you can come up with is worth the additional RAM and CPU usage that it takes up. So far, you haven't given a single example that carries water.
This is another "what the hell?" kind of comment. Ok, under the rules of the game that you've created wherein the goal post can move however far you'd like it to be. You're right. There's no reason any human on the planet would ever have any reason whatsoever to ever possibly multitask in any situation on any computer. Are you happy now?
However, in the real world, I'd like to be able to use my iPhone within the capabilities that it *does* have, but Apple has chosen to limit, specifically, I use my iPhone all the time to listen to radio stations all over the world while at the same time using other apps. Since Apple doesn't provide a radio service app like Pandora or FM radio, then I need to use a 3rd party app and multitasking gives me this ability.
You can tell you've lost the argument when you make things up and pretend the other person said them (it's called a 'straw man argument'. I never said that NO computer could EVER need multitasking. Obviously, on a desktop computer it has value. Even on a laptop, it has value. But the iPad IS NOT A LAPTOP and has a different function. The iPad has a certain function and design. The fact that you can hack it to do something different doesn't mean that Apple should do so. You can play music while reading a book - which is what I said. The fact that you can't do it with your particular application is irrelevant to anyone but you.
[being able to see two apps at the same time]
"Where in the world do you dream up this stuff? There's nothing stopping you from having an email message open, switch to the web, and then switch back. That doesn't require multitasking and works just fine on the iPhone."
Wow. Someone else posted the same point as me using different words and you still don't get it. Are you using a Mac or PC now...or ever? Next time that you do, look at the application you're using. Do you see any other applications on your screen? Probably, right? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft or anyone else automatically hide all other apps (and not give you a choice)? Because it can be useful to be able to *see* what's being displayed in one app while working in another. The iPhone's screen is too small for that...sort of (although SBSettings and others show alternatives), but the iPad *is* large enough to allow multi-app display. What a shame to have an email, document or whatever with a whole bunch of numbers scattered through paragraphs and having to constantly switch between that and the calculator for no real reason.
Once again, you really need to get one concept through your thick skull. THE IPAD IS NOT A LAPTOP. IT IS NOT A FULL-SERVICE COMPUTER. Its screen will not support 10 apps all being displayed at the same time and even if it would, that complicates the UI enough to defeat the primary purpose of the iPad.
It's not the iPad's fault that you want it to be something it's not. Heck, I'd like it to wake up in the morning and scramble eggs for me, too. But that's not what it's supposed to be, either.
You will do this. You won't do that! Therefore you don't need this. You must get a laptop!
Not relevant? Take a look at all the FTP apps or similar to FTP apps already in the iTunes Store. I use FTP On The Go all the time. It's a $7 app and it has over 200 4/5 star ratings.
Why do I *need* this? Because I often have to move files around from servers and do other admin type work. I can be anywhere with cell or wifi connectivity and do this *without* a laptop. I always have my iPhone with me wherever I am.
You want to define *need* a little better than, "you don't need this, you can use a laptop"?
Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really no brighter than a 3 year old? The iPad is NOT a laptop replacement. It's a media presentation device with thin client capabilities. It's not meant to do everything that a laptop does. The fact that you've hacked the iPhone to do some things doesn't mean the iPad should do them.
YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE. Repeat that until it sinks in - 50,000 times if necessary.
That's cute. YOU only do little stuff like "download email" and have never bothered finding out what was possible, so you went on to pose a question, move the goal posts and then attack yourself. I wasn't talking about downloading email and app upgrades, I was talking about any number of file downloads from 3rd party apps. Again, you're right. You and my grandma don't *need* multitasking.
You and my grandma have no need for the following, but many if not most would find some of the following to be useful:
View 2 3rd party apps at the same time
Use 3rd party apps to listen to the radio while using other apps*
Switch between 3rd party apps without having to have them relaunch
Allow 3rd party apps to download files in the background
Who's moving the goal posts? You said that the iPad wouldn't download while you did something else. I gave a couple of examples that prove you wrong.
And, once again, it's not designed to be a laptop replacement. The fact that YOU don't have the intellect to understand that isn't a failing of the product.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Since there's little or no real benefit, why make the customers suffer?
I have a jailbroken iPhone. I use Backgrounder. I am very familiar with how much resources background apps use.
Many, if not most, apps don't use enough enough resources to affect the foreground app or the user experience. Of course, you keep piling on apps in the way the "just give us background apps like Android/WebOS" crowd wants it then you do start running into problem.
Hence, my balanced compromise for an API that allows the developer to set up the background process akin to Push Notifications, Apple's guidelines for background resource usage, the OS' limitation on background apps depending on iDevice model, and the user's deliberate execution of this option. Only the very last part involves the user and it's not on by default.
Customer's only suffer if it's done with due process or forethought, like with Android and WebOS. If you look at the iPhone 3GS' RAM you see there is plenty for most apps to be able to remain in the background without affecting other apps. The original and 3G can't say the same thing and will likely never get official backgrounding. Backgrounding was a pain on them because of the paltry 128MB RAM, half of which is used by the OS itself.
If you've owned every phone you'd know that the 3GS is the first iPhone that doesn't skip when using the iPod while using other apps or require Safari page reloads because you jumped into Mail for a second.
Anything is possible in a world economy where almost every day there is another country, or company that is "discovered" to be in such dire straights they have to be rescued, usually at the expense of the taxpayer ..... and save your rants against the left or right because we are ALL to blame for this mess ... by ignoring the writing on the wall and believing it was our right to live beyond our means based solely on where we were lucky enough to be born.
The volatility in the stock market, I think, just reflects how bad the system is broke and unfortunately Apple, and a lot of other good companies, are only being taken along for the ride. IMHO, caution is the word of the day ... when participating in the stock market now.
Well, my guess is that the worst is over, ya know, in fact I doubt wee will be seeing too much of sub $200 even. There will be enough 'good news' to keep AAPL loft for quite a while I personally think.
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 of a feature that people have risked their warranties, gone through the effort of developing the feature and others have adopted the hack. There are a large number of people who have jailbroken their iPhones and enabling multitasking is always high on the lists that I've seen for reasons people give for doing so.
Watch, eventually there will be multitasking on the iPhone...where will your argument stand then? I'm imagining you'll disappear or at best say that "now the iPhone has the hardware capable of doing it", but we, who are doing it now, are telling you that the iPhone does it just fine when enabled.
Won't work. Having an app working in the background uses extra RAM (sometimes LOTS of RAM) as well as CPU resources. The customer could get a lousy experience without knowing why.
Many...most don't. And it wouldn't be hard for Apple to only approve background functionality for apps that don't use X amount of RAM or CPU cycles in the background.
The iPad supports games quitting and coming back to the same point - which negates your claim that it's not possible.
That's not the argument. It's not a question of whether or not a game or app can save the state and then reload it when the app is relaunched, it's a question of whether or not things change in the state when the app is relaunched. Location, server data, time, and lots of metadata can change making relaunching an app a long process due to having to check on all of the status, and in some cases getting permission to do so.
AND, you need to show that any minor advantage that you can come up with is worth the additional RAM and CPU usage that it takes up. So far, you haven't given a single example that carries water.
Running my newsreader in the background takes up 20MB . Listening to KROQ out of Los Angeles is taking up less than 30MB. Right now I'm listening to KROQ, downloading a file and have my newsreader updating and I'm not getting any lag and have 120MB of free RAM. What's the "not worth it" part? While doing all of this, a good chunk of my iPhone is still not even being used. Oh, and during this time I got a text message and a call that I let go through to voicemail.
You can tell you've lost the argument when you make things up and pretend the other person said them (it's called a 'straw man argument'. I never said that NO computer could EVER need multitasking.
It's called exaggerating to make the point that you're going to argue things you don't know about and not accept anything someone presents to you as proof that you're wrong. You'll just keep moving the goal posts.
You can play music while reading a book - which is what I said. The fact that you can't do it with your particular application is irrelevant to anyone but you.
No, you asked why one would need multitasking. I pointed out that you narrowly defined the scenario. Nobody said you can't listen to music, as a matter of fact I specifically mentioned "Unless that music is coming from a 3rd party app, like a radio based app." It's not "my particular app"; it's the any number of radio and other music apps that do quite well on Apple's store, but people find annoying when they can't run them in the background. Sorry, you have to stop the 3rd party music app to check email! Who wants that?
Its screen will not support 10 apps all being displayed at the same time and even if it would, that complicates the UI enough to defeat the primary purpose of the iPad.
It doesn't need to display 10 apps. Just 2 would be helpful. The iPad has a larger size and resolution display than the Classic Mac. That was capable of displaying multiple apps. Again, even the iPhone has work arounds for this.
It's not the iPad's fault that you want it to be something it's not. Heck, I'd like it to wake up in the morning and scramble eggs for me, too. But that's not what it's supposed to be, either.
The difference is that the iPad isn't physically able to do this. The iPhone and iPad are quite capable of multitasking.
Who's moving the goal posts? You said that the iPad wouldn't download while you did something else. I gave a couple of examples that prove you wrong.
No, I gave specific examples such as FTP and 3rd party apps that download media files. Your examples suck. Being able to "download email" doesn't help me when I need to download or upload a file via FTP (or other examples) and don't want to keep the app active the entire time I'm doing so.
You sound a lot like the people who asked about 3rd party apps. If you need to listen to music you have the iPod app, you don't need anything else. Well, now there are tons of apps and lots of people buy them.
Are the radio apps in the iTunes not valid, not worthy, or have not shown traction/market acceptance? How could you possibly argue that those radio apps don't work better with multitasking enabled, unless you're purposely trying to be ignorant.
Again, YOU asked the question. Why do people need multitasking? You don't want to accept or can't understand the answers. That's fine. The summary is that people use multitasking on the iPhone today on jailbroken iPhones to do things that you're to novice to do...or for that matter even understand.
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 is coming from a 3rd party app, like a radio based app.
Can you play a game at the same time as you browse the web?
Hell yes you can. You're in the middle of a game and want to search for a cheat code, tip or trick, it's nice to be able to do it with the device as opposed to going over to another computer to look it up.
And with the iPad, there will be numerous situations where you'll want to see both apps at the same time. Maybe you're composing a message but you want to reference something else you want to be able to see. The space limitations on the iPhone prevent this, but it could otherwise be done on the iPad if it wasn't for the lack of multitasking.
Another huge thing is to have apps run in the background...doing things while you're doing something else. Music apps are an obvious example of this, but there are apps that transfer files, like FTP apps, or media download apps. You can sit there and watch the file download over a long period of time, or you could have it be done in the background while you're doing anything else you want to do.
I have an RSS reader. In the background, it can download all of my feeds and cache them so I can read them when I have no connectivity. I don't want push notifications for each news item, I just want to be able to read them whenever I want without having to actively watch them download or be somewhere where I have connectivity.
Multitasking on a jailbroken iPhone works flawlessly for me and others. It's a shame that it's not enabled in the OS for 3rd party apps yet.
your child like examples are not multi tasking
IN any case, Apple continues to be a company that is innovative, creative growth company that continues to buck the trend on sales in the present economy.
Today, Apple stock closed at just over $200 at $200.38. So let's assume that Apple's stock price goes up what it went up in 2009, then on or about 1/1/2011 the price of aapl would be up 146.9% from 12/31/2009's price ($210.73) and it would be at $520.29!
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
So let's assume only 50% growth in the stock price and then it would be at $315 on 1/1/2011 - that still sounds crazy but it is only 50% growth in a dynamic stock from a company capable of big and quick growth.
Even only 10% percent growth in the stock - which sounds absurdly low - would raise aapl stock to about $231 which many of you can't even begin to imagine - why is that?
I would certainly hope (and actually believe) that aapl stock will be at somewhere between $230 and $315. Sure you say that sounds like I made a safe bet with a big range like that - but then again most of you refuse to admit that it is possible. I think it is probable.
Review aapl's stock performance for the last 10 years
Through 2/12/2010
10 year average +22.2% per year (through 1/10/2010)
5 year average +37.6% per year
3 year average +33,2% per year
1 Year +101.9%
3 months -0.8%
1 month -3.5%
YTD -4.9%
So why can't you believe that in a year, aapl will be up quite a bit, perhaps even only its 10-year average of 22% which would put it at about $240 - $250 which sounds very reasonable looking at the big picture.
?
there is a saying ...
Everyone over-estimates what can be done in the long term and under-estimates what can be done in the short term.
think about this.
In the 1960s the predictions were for us to be flying around wearing jet packs by the year 2000? Where are those? Yet 10 years ago no one would have predicted the iPod.
In any case, my prediction is that Mac sales will never get higher than perhaps 15% before nose diving back to about 2% and then shortly there after zero - all within the next 10 years. The iPad or some other device will replace them all. Laptops will no longer exist either. Everything will be smaller mobile devices AND all-in-one entertainment/communication units at home and in business. no more Macs. no more PCs.
your child like examples are not multi tasking
That's got to be the stupidest post I've ever seen here. If you don't know what multitasking is, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
I'd be interested in hearing what your definition is.
Well, my guess is that the worst is over, ya know, in fact I doubt wee will be seeing too much of sub $200 even. There will be enough 'good news' to keep AAPL loft for quite a while I personally think.
I'd like to be as positive as you but until I see governments all over the world stop printing money out of thin air and/or trying to borrow their way out of debt (which doesn't work for anybody, but we still keep trying) .... and see society as a whole being more responsible re: finances I'm still waiting for the "other shoe to drop". I think the May to July period will be, as they say ... very interesting.
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
You'd do just as well ask who would have predicted that AAPL would drop more than 50% in three months in 2008 even as earnings grew. A much simpler method of determining the stock's potential would be to consider the stock price if it returned to a multiple of earnings closer to its historical average over periods of similar earnings growth during the past five years, between 30 and 40. A return to even to the low end of that range is a price of $300.
I agree that most analysts go way overboard in one direction or another. I always ask if these analysts are so clairvoyant why didn't they all predict the market in 2008 and then again the great performance in 2009?
IN any case, Apple continues to be a company that is innovative, creative growth company that continues to buck the trend on sales in the present economy.
Today, Apple stock closed at just over $200 at $200.38. So let's assume that Apple's stock price goes up what it went up in 2009, then on or about 1/1/2011 the price of aapl would be up 146.9% from 12/31/2009's price ($210.73) and it would be at $520.29!
We would probably all agree quickly that it is not going to be at $520.29 on 1/1/2011 - but who would have predicted that aapl stock would go up 146.9% in 2009?
So let's assume only 50% growth in the stock price and then it would be at $315 on 1/1/2011 - that still sounds crazy but it is only 50% growth in a dynamic stock from a company capable of big and quick growth.
Even only 10% percent growth in the stock - which sounds absurdly low - would raise aapl stock to about $231 which many of you can't even begin to imagine - why is that?
I would certainly hope (and actually believe) that aapl stock will be at somewhere between $230 and $315. Sure you say that sounds like I made a safe bet with a big range like that - but then again most of you refuse to admit that it is possible. I think it is probable.
sorry
but your wrong wrong
appl took a world wide hit when the markets crashed
from 180 ish to 100 ish
has now only gone back to 200 range from 16 month ago or so
apple has sold very well in a bad market
and many large investors lost so much on other stocks they haver to sell aapl to take insane profits off the table , THIS makes for wild swings in stock price
also is frozen for 2 months w/ the ipad launch wait .
investors can always buy back in late march so why hold it with no upside and a possible downside
all things considered including foreign markets being on fire for anything
bodes well for apple to quickly pass 250 275 300 ranges
has four strong lines that all will sell in the BN's in 2012
apple has over 300 stores in 2012 that also sell many other high profit items
has the best web site in the world which also sells 3 rd party items
itunes // app store also will start to make a lot of money by 2015
apple also will sell a smaller cheaper no contract phone soon
a carrier less <<MVNO >> nano video phone and or a nano wrist watch video phone .. AND by 2014 sales of 200 million a yr by 2017 is possible
apple at $500. in 2013-4 is a no brainer at apple s PE 36 X
buy appl
sell goog
sell sbux
buy gm
long live SJ
peace 9
That's got to be the stupidest post I've ever seen here. If you don't know what multitasking is, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
I'd be interested in hearing what your definition is.
<<<stupidest post ?? really ?? >>>
please look at the start back in the 1990'a exactly what multi tasking and multi threading is
and every apple device since 2002 had multi tasked in the back ground
my 2009 160 g classic ipod can play a song and play a game while updating or sync ing content .
that is not multi tasking . or is it ??
your simple examples are so easy for any device made 10 yrs ago to handle
and again your device already multi tasks in the back ground \\
true multi tasking would be say talking on the phone while searching goggle earth for a rare bird location while playing vortex game in between breaks of the first two while going in and out of the 3g net work . and a second CALL arrives and instructs you to DL from the net a RAW tiff photo
render and change the photo in aperture <<open email app >>>and then re send in broad cast mode the said photo to 300 clients . your device would multi thread multi task all these items at the same time //some items would slow to a crawl some would speed up and drop out .
DO this for 3 hrs and then call me
your example s are a media creation of what they think is multi
APPLE will not drain its batteries
so your easy to do examples are possible 7 yrs ago
my MBP3.02HGz can handle this for a while
any smart phone in the world would crash and or lose its charge very quick
the future is minutes away
peace dude
9
lostplay
sorry
but your wrong wrong
apple at $500. in 2013-4 is a no brainer at apple s PE 36 X
buy appl
sell goog
sell sbux
buy gm
long live SJ
peace 9
Actually, perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree almost completely with you (my only difference is I think Ford (F) is a much better buy than GM and I did buy a bunch a year ago).
My overall point was that there are two many people who a doom and gloomers about Apple but if they would just check the record one would see that Apple has done very well over the last 10 years and they are in a much better situation today then they ever have been.
So I decided to just take a conservative view of Apple and say suppose the stock increased by only 20% this year then the stock would be at about $230+. While that seems high (there are not many $200+ stocks out there), it isn't based on where aapl was on 12/31/2009 and is today. Getting higher than that is also not far fetched either.
Certainly, as you point out, other factors can affect any increases to aapl such as the 2008 worldwide sell off of equities. aapl was not immune to that so those who note that Apple dropped quickly should realize that was beyond their doing.
Also aapl is a stock that is manipulated for certain. I have played it expecting it to do quick drops of $10 in either direction over a week or month period of time.
Thanks for your rebuttal but we think the same or similarly.
go aapl
Actually, perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree almost completely with you (my only difference is I think Ford (F) is a much better buy than GM and I did buy a bunch a year ago).
My overall point was that there are two many people who a doom and gloomers about Apple but if they would just check the record one would see that Apple has done very well over the last 10 years and they are in a much better situation today then they ever have been.
So I decided to just take a conservative view of Apple and say suppose the stock increased by only 20% this year then the stock would be at about $230+. While that seems high (there are not many $200+ stocks out there), it isn't based on where aapl was on 12/31/2009 and is today. Getting higher than that is also not far fetched either.
The number of stocks selling above $200 is utterly irrelevant to anything. It is of no consequence whatsoever. Your "conservative view" is also completely meaningless, since stocks are not valued in the way you suggest, not even slightly, remotely, or the least bit. In short, this is about the most uneducated analysis I have ever seen.
As for "manipulation" -- this is utter poppycock. AAPL is a very volatile stock, always has been, always will be. A $10 change is not a big one for AAPL if only because it happens all the time, and this only 5% of the current stock price.
<<<stupidest post ?? really ?? >>>
Not any longer. I think we have a new winner!
Seriously dude, spend a few seconds clicking here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
You'll learn something today!
You might also want to see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multitasking
You'll at least learn how to spell multitasking.
We're over here talking about multitasking in the context of being able to run more than one app on the iPhone at the same time, which the iPhone can do, but Apple doesn't allow multitasking with 3rd party apps. You have to jailbreak to do the examples of multitasking that I listed.
"your simple examples are so easy for any device made 10 yrs ago to handle and again your device already multi tasks in the back ground "
Really? 10 years ago you could run any 3rd party streaming radio app while navigating on Google Maps? Because you can't do that today on an iPhone without jailbreaking.
"true multi tasking would be say talking..."
That's great, try submitting that to Wikipedia or any other source that provides definition or information and see what response they come back with.
I don't know what you think the point was of your comment here. Nobody is asking or expecting Apple to enable the impossible as you suggest. We're just asking Apple to enable the functionality of multitasking with 3rd party apps in the OS because many of us have done so ourselves with jailbroken iPhones and found the experience to be significantly better.
We're over here talking about multitasking in the context of being able to run more than one app on the iPhone at the same time, which the iPhone can do, but Apple doesn't allow multitasking with 3rd party apps.
That isn't quite accurate. Apple doesn't allow App Store apps to run in the background, which includes their growing number of 1st-party App Store apps.
I don't know what you think the point was of your comment here. Nobody is asking or expecting Apple to enable the impossible as you suggest. We're just asking Apple to enable the functionality of multitasking with 3rd party apps in the OS because many of us have done so ourselves with jailbroken iPhones and found the experience to be significantly better.
You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished. Just saying that they should implement it because you can do it with a jailbroken app isn't a good argument. You've failed to list any issues of how this could be a problem for Apple and their customers, and ways they could combat these problems to make backgrounding a useful option for even the most technically inept iDevice user.
Without thinking it through it's a complete failure of an argument. For example, do you recall the MagicPad developer, Zac White, who made and app that allowed copy/paste long before Apple added it in v3.0? He also created a video explaining what Apple would have to do to make copy/paste for the iPhone OS and why the logistics would be considerably more difficult for Apple and therefore take much longer to build.
That isn't quite accurate. Apple doesn't allow App Store apps to run in the background, which includes their growing number of 1st-party App Store apps.
You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished....
Best post yet on the subject!!!
You're right, it doesn't include a growing number of 1st party apps. One in particular is the Apple Remote app. I use this all the time at my house and it used to drive me nuts (before I jailbroke) that I had to relaunch, reconnect, reload the app just to do anything if I had been in another app.
"You have yet to describe a viable scenario for how this could or should be accomplished."
True, but that hasn't been the focus of the debate. It's been about whether or not there was a need for it.
Here's how I would accomplish it:
First, let me say that the jailbroken method isn't that bad. It works very well for most who were savvy enough to enable it in the first place. Still I admit just like your example of copy & paste, the jailbroken solution isn't as elegant as what Apple could do with their own implementation.
Take a look at how multitasking (cooperative) was implemented on the Mac with System 6. It was an option, and was something that advanced "power" users were capable of enabling. The interface for it wasn't fully fleshed out and all of the FUD about it then existed as well (except for battery life).
Apple could do the same with the iPhone OS. Enable it as an option in the Settings App. Provide a warning that it could drain the battery and slow things down.
The interface for enabling individual apps to run in the background could function just as the jailbroken methods demonstrate today, although I could see Apple doing a few things better. I would very much like to see Apple incorporate a dashboard like SBSettings, that's another subject, but from a dashboard app switching, app closing, and usage info could be displayed just like it can now with SBSettings.
One more thing like System 6. Not all apps would be background enable-able. Apple could set up some mechanism for doing this. Developers could simply set the flag to enable or not, and then upon submission to the store, Apple could check and see how resource intensive an app is when running and if it exceeds the published guidelines, it wouldn't be approved.
Additionally, 3rd party apps would get lowest nice priority. Looking back to Apple's cooperative multitasking days, when resources become constrained, the dashboard could pop down automatically and alert as well as provide the interface there and then to quit an app (showing the amount of resources for each).
As far as battery life... This has already been figured out by jailbreakers. There are times when you want an app to keep running in standby mode (streaming radio when plugged in) and times you want background apps to go idle (games) again, this isn't hard at all for the developer to either know what the app should do (and be approved by the store as verification), or for the app to have both a setting and alert (like the streaming radio app would have).
Now the above may sound complicated, but it's really not. All of the major stuff above is already present, and working well in many jailbroken iPhones. Additionally, for all of the people who think multitasking is the tool of Satan, they'd be completely unaffected by this because they'd be far too scared to ever think about enabling it in the Settings app.