I think Apple needs to make the first years subscription to .Mac free with the purchase of a new Mac, US$30 with the purchase of an iPhone; and drop the renewal price to US$50 for all current & future subscribers.
If you purchase a new Mac down the road, you have the opportunity to use your free year for an extension of your current subscription, thus preventing having to start a whole new account.
Apple is getting a share of the monthly earnings from subscriptions for the iPhone as I recall, so I would say that an iPhone customer should expect a free service that adds value above the competitors to the iPhone. Having them pay $20-99/year extra for that would make it less attractive to me as a consumer. I personally don't see the value in .Mac in its current form, but syncing of information from my computer to the iPhone while on the road seems like a good start.
No, I mean the latter 2. That's why I put them in italics.
You said the latter two. The items were listed in this order:
Quote:
iPhone 2.0 software and possibly hardware
Either MacBooks (Pro) or new Cinema displays
10% possibility of new .Mac service.
Latter means:
situated or occurring nearer to the end of something than to the
denoting the second or second mentioned of two people or
So by saying the latter two, your referring to "Either MacBook (Pro) or New Cinema displays" and "10% possibility of new .Mac service."
If you were to have said, "the former to" you would have been referring to "iPhone 2.0 software and possibly hardware" and "Either MacBook (Pro) or new Cinema displays."
Former in this situation means:
denoting the first or first mentioned of two people or
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
802.11n isn't important for the iPhone at all. No internet service provided through wireless is fast enough to utilize the speed of 802.11n and better range isn't an helpful since BOTH the router and the receiver has to be 802.11n in order for the range to be increased. Most wireless is current NOT 802.11n. Also, there may be some restrictions on mobile phones/devices regarding a non-ratified standard. The only current advantage of 802.11n is with networking and home-server features like Time Capsule or Apple TV which require large amounts of bandwidth. Apple's introduction of 802.11n was solely based on their future plans with Apple TV, Time Capsule and other similar devices.
802.11n isn't important for the iPhone at all. No internet service provided through wireless is fast enough to utilize the speed of 802.11n and better range isn't an helpful since BOTH the router and the receiver has to be 802.11n in order for the range to be increased. Most wireless is current NOT 802.11n. Also, there may be some restrictions on mobile phones/devices regarding a non-ratified standard. The only current advantage of 802.11n is with networking and home-server features like Time Capsule or Apple TV which require large amounts of bandwidth. Apple's introduction of 802.11n was solely based on their future plans with Apple TV, Time Capsule and other similar devices.
This is true.
Even 802.11g has a max speed greater than most consumer broadband speeds in the U.S. ...sadly.
Did anyone else catch that he said 120 hertz for the TV screens?
As far as I know, LCDs do not have refresh rates, since nothing is continuously scanning across as in CRT monitors. LCDs have response time, instead of refresh rates (which is measured in hertz)
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
Than this is for you.
New BlackBerry® Device
Every BlackBerry Smartphone Has A Full QWERTY Keyboard. Available Now!
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
I'm with you rezwits-- should be in the MacMini too.
Did anyone else catch that he said 120 hertz for the TV screens?
As far as I know, LCDs do not have refresh rates, since nothing is continuously scanning across as in CRT monitors. LCDs have response time, instead of refresh rates (which is measured in hertz)
Refresh may not have been the correct term, but the screen is written to at twice the normal LCD rate of 60 Hz. this is becoming common amongst better LCD Tv's.
My Samsung LED projection Tv is also written to at 120 Hz.
As we're talking about possible entries at the ADC, I would like to, again, present the possibility of Nehalem Mac Pro's making a showing.
What the percentage is, I can't say, but new evidence that they are pretty much, if not entirely, ready is at hand at Computex. Numerous working Nehalem boards were on display at Intel's booth, including a number from Intel themselves.
This is tantalizing. Read down to the end, after the photos:
As we're talking about possible entries at the ADC, I would like to, again, present the possibility of Nehalem Mac Pro's making a showing.
What the percentage is, I can't say, but new evidence that they are pretty much, if not entirely, ready is at hand at Computex. Numerous working Nehalem boards were on display at Intel's booth, including a number from Intel themselves.
This is tantalizing. Read down to the end, after the photos:
Comments
I think Apple needs to make the first years subscription to .Mac free with the purchase of a new Mac, US$30 with the purchase of an iPhone; and drop the renewal price to US$50 for all current & future subscribers.
If you purchase a new Mac down the road, you have the opportunity to use your free year for an extension of your current subscription, thus preventing having to start a whole new account.
Apple is getting a share of the monthly earnings from subscriptions for the iPhone as I recall, so I would say that an iPhone customer should expect a free service that adds value above the competitors to the iPhone. Having them pay $20-99/year extra for that would make it less attractive to me as a consumer. I personally don't see the value in .Mac in its current form, but syncing of information from my computer to the iPhone while on the road seems like a good start.
You mean the former two?
No, I mean the latter 2. That's why I put them in italics.
No, I mean the latter 2. That's why I put them in italics.
You said the latter two. The items were listed in this order:
iPhone 2.0 software and possibly hardware
Either MacBooks (Pro) or new Cinema displays
10% possibility of new .Mac service.
Latter means:
- situated or occurring nearer to the end of something than to the
- denoting the second or second mentioned of two people or
So by saying the latter two, your referring to "Either MacBook (Pro) or New Cinema displays" and "10% possibility of new .Mac service."If you were to have said, "the former to" you would have been referring to "iPhone 2.0 software and possibly hardware" and "Either MacBook (Pro) or new Cinema displays."
Former in this situation means:
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
802.11n isn't important for the iPhone at all. No internet service provided through wireless is fast enough to utilize the speed of 802.11n and better range isn't an helpful since BOTH the router and the receiver has to be 802.11n in order for the range to be increased. Most wireless is current NOT 802.11n. Also, there may be some restrictions on mobile phones/devices regarding a non-ratified standard. The only current advantage of 802.11n is with networking and home-server features like Time Capsule or Apple TV which require large amounts of bandwidth. Apple's introduction of 802.11n was solely based on their future plans with Apple TV, Time Capsule and other similar devices.
I think we're going to see demos of a lot of iPhone apps. And I mean a LOT.
Sure, they have to steal back some of the thunder from the Android demo now.
802.11n isn't important for the iPhone at all. No internet service provided through wireless is fast enough to utilize the speed of 802.11n and better range isn't an helpful since BOTH the router and the receiver has to be 802.11n in order for the range to be increased. Most wireless is current NOT 802.11n. Also, there may be some restrictions on mobile phones/devices regarding a non-ratified standard. The only current advantage of 802.11n is with networking and home-server features like Time Capsule or Apple TV which require large amounts of bandwidth. Apple's introduction of 802.11n was solely based on their future plans with Apple TV, Time Capsule and other similar devices.
This is true.
Even 802.11g has a max speed greater than most consumer broadband speeds in the U.S. ...sadly.
You said the latter two. The items were listed in this order:]
Yes, and read again what he wrote:
The .Mac is the more likely of those latter 2 by far.
Of. Not than. He was correct.
Yes, and read again what he wrote:
Of. Not than. He was correct.
Zing!
Yes, and read again what he wrote:
Of. Not than. He was correct.
Thankyou, yes
Thankyou, yes
Ouch. I read that through every time and for some reason I was always thinking than. My bad!
As far as I know, LCDs do not have refresh rates, since nothing is continuously scanning across as in CRT monitors. LCDs have response time, instead of refresh rates (which is measured in hertz)
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
Than this is for you.
New BlackBerry® Device
Every BlackBerry Smartphone Has A Full QWERTY Keyboard. Available Now!
Ouch. I read that through every time and for some reason I was always thinking than. My bad!
S'okay, I had to read it twice to get it too.
Ouch. I read that through every time and for some reason I was always thinking than. My bad!
No problem mate
I just can't believe no one seems to think 802.11n for the iPhone is just as important 3G, I almost don't even want to buy the new one when it comes out unless it has 802.11n
I'm with you rezwits-- should be in the MacMini too.
Did anyone else catch that he said 120 hertz for the TV screens?
As far as I know, LCDs do not have refresh rates, since nothing is continuously scanning across as in CRT monitors. LCDs have response time, instead of refresh rates (which is measured in hertz)
Refresh may not have been the correct term, but the screen is written to at twice the normal LCD rate of 60 Hz. this is becoming common amongst better LCD Tv's.
My Samsung LED projection Tv is also written to at 120 Hz.
What the percentage is, I can't say, but new evidence that they are pretty much, if not entirely, ready is at hand at Computex. Numerous working Nehalem boards were on display at Intel's booth, including a number from Intel themselves.
This is tantalizing. Read down to the end, after the photos:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...008-great-wall
While AnandTech says that Nehalem will be released in the fall, it seems to be ready now, and as Apple has received new product early...
As we're talking about possible entries at the ADC, I would like to, again, present the possibility of Nehalem Mac Pro's making a showing.
What the percentage is, I can't say, but new evidence that they are pretty much, if not entirely, ready is at hand at Computex. Numerous working Nehalem boards were on display at Intel's booth, including a number from Intel themselves.
This is tantalizing. Read down to the end, after the photos:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...008-great-wall
While AnandTech says that Nehalem will be released in the fall, it seems to be ready now, and as Apple has received new product early...
Perhaps a '1/2 Mac Pro' tower too?
Single 45nm processor, 8 core (OK, 4 would do), 3.6GHz.
Also with the 3 channel set up will make 4 dimm systems bad so 1 cpu mac system better have 6 ram slots. With 2 x16 and 1 x4 pci-e slot.