it only "seems sad to you" because you read the stupid write-up on Reddit instead of actually looking at the picture.
Both it and the next one clearly show Jobs smiling, and his wife smiling back at him. He's not exhausted, and you can totally tell quite easily by looking at the pictures as well as the ones on either side, as well as simply watching the freaking Keynote.
These are pictures of a happy man at the top of his game and it's ridiculously obvious that they are, if (again), you actually look at the pictures (closely).
Okay, may be I am seeing patterns where there are none. As for the keynote I felt the same looking at it and reading the many audience tweets.
iMessage is only useful if every single person in the world has an iOS Device. SMS/MMS are global standards that exist on every text device regardless of maker. iMessage is proprietary. It will have limited appeal but for me, most of my contacts do not have iOS devices (yet) and some will never have one (love Androids).
This is like some of the images in any beginning psychology book: The interpretation is up to the viewer. Without ANY backup whatsoever, you can't say what is the truth or not. Only what you think, which may or may not be correct.
So without an official statement, just assume he's good and keep buying Apple!
This is like some of the images in any beginning psychology book: The interpretation is up to the viewer. Without ANY backup whatsoever, you can't say what is the truth or not.
Sorry, but I can't agree. We do have backup in both his well-known medical history and his obvious weight loss. I happen to be the same age as Jobs as was my late wife. I watched her slowly perish from cancer-induced liver failure and I'm sorry to say there are too many similarities with Jobs. But even though his life expectancy has probably been seriously reduced, we can be thrilled that he's still vertical and appreciate all his enormous contributions today, and hope for even more tomorrow.
Just like veins are dumb pipes but without them you'd die rather quickly.
What's your point? We were discussing the feasibility of an M&A scenario.
Apple acknowledges the utility of a cellular company, they just don't see those sort of companies as worthwhile acquisitions. They don't really fit into Apple's business model. Heck, Apple doesn't market cheapo netbooks.
Apple is highly selective about where they put their effort. There is nothing in Apple's behavior that indicates any sort of interest whatsoever in acquiring a mobile operator.
Yes, Steve Jobs probably understands the importance of oxygen, yet Apple is not investing in that.
Let's keep this discussion on track and relevant to what Apple's business is, okay?
Okay, so it seems that if using iMessage, my iPhone will look at my friend's phone number and determine if he has an iPhone running iOS5 and automatically switch from a message to an imessage. Very user friendly and is automatically trying to send the message for the user as cheap as possible.
Though, where I get stuck is if I have a friend with a BB and an iPad, one day I may text using Messages SMS to BB and a while later send iMessages to his iPad. These will probably show up as separate conversation strings and I can see that it might get annoying sorting through your multiple conversations with the same name individual and figuring out which conversation is going where.
The problem already exists for anyone with 2 phone numbers that you text. You may have 1 contact with 2 phone numbers that they use and the Messages conversation list just lists them by Contact name. These Conversation lists need to display Contact Name + tag to differentiate, and I'm not sure Apple is going to do that.
Wouldn't it be great if Apple just bought Sprint, hired a few PHD's, called AppleMobille and only sold iPhones and iPad's from their Apple stores and online. With an unlimited plan for $49.95 for your iPhones and iPad!
How many people would stay with Verizon and ATT...3?
No advertising, no Sprint stores, one simple bill = no customer service or billing staff. Bill through iTunes.
P.S. Then buy a SatTV company! All channels, $29.95/mo.
I am convinced this will happen, but for reasons I am writing a big post on for some websites to start discussion. Basically, Apple could buy Sprint and never need it to make any money as a network provider.
I hope Apple can make it transparent to the user between sending messages to people with iPhones and people without.
The majority of my text messages are to groups of people ("Meet in pub at 9") and the iPhone is quite good at this as you can just scroll back through the list of previous messages and pick the group you want to send a message to.
Within groups, some people may have iPhones, others won't and it would be dumb and frustrating to use 2 different ways to send a message to a group of people.
The client must keep notifying the server that the user is online in order for other users to see that the user is available, but this requires regular network activity, which in turn demands precious battery life. A chat client capable of servicing various IM services would have to do this for each IM network it supported, quickly using lots of battery just to enable basic chat functionality with users on each chat service, a poor tradeoff between end user value and battery life consumption.
If you're going to make a claim like this, at least back it up with some figures. How many hours less battery life should a user expect in real world conditions? What's the cost for the first IM service connected to? What's the cost for subsequent services?
The client must keep notifying the server that the user is online in order for other users to see that the user is available, but this requires regular network activity, which in turn demands precious battery life. A chat client capable of servicing various IM services would have to do this for each IM network it supported, quickly using lots of battery just to enable basic chat functionality with users on each chat service, a poor tradeoff between end user value and battery life consumption.
Rather than bringing one or more proprietary IM chat services to iOS (as it has done in iChat for Mac users), Apple instead prioritized the development of two other services: the first being push messaging used for both app notifications and push email and contacts, and the second being FaceTime. Both services internally use an IM-like system to deliver alert notifications, push messages or incoming FaceTime calls, and in all cases the technology used is open XMPP messages.
So if I've got this right, iMessage doesn't actually use any less power as it has to do the same thing. But your phone will be doing this anyway for Facetime and therefore it's using less power due to it being one service.
However if they supported MS or Googles IM for people who used them, and those people also used email from them, then the service also wouldn't use any extra power as the phone is already checking in with the propriatory service for email push notifications.
So if your a user who uses push services from Google and not Facetime then iMessage will use more power than if they had made it work with Googles IM. Potentially it's also not going to make that much difference as iPhones are constantly sending and recieving data anyway.
What's your point? We were discussing the feasibility of an M&A scenario.
Apple acknowledges the utility of a cellular company, they just don't see those sort of companies as worthwhile acquisitions. They don't really fit into Apple's business model. Heck, Apple doesn't market cheapo netbooks.
Apple is highly selective about where they put their effort. There is nothing in Apple's behavior that indicates any sort of interest whatsoever in acquiring a mobile operator.
Yes, Steve Jobs probably understands the importance of oxygen, yet Apple is not investing in that.
Let's keep this discussion on track and relevant to what Apple's business is, okay?
My point has nothing to do with Apple acquiring a carrier. Simply that the so called dumb pipes carry the life's blood of our devices, our calls, emails, SMS/MMS, internet, etc....and they're job like any other business is to maximize profits.
What I want to know is, can I txt someone from an iPod or iPad? iMessages on iPhone lets you send txt to anyone and iMessage to other iOS device users. Is the same thing true on the iPad/iPod, or does those apps only show conversations with other iOs device users? If the latter is true, then it is not quite seamless, especially when sending a group message to a number of people, only some of whom are on iOS. I presume in that case it sends an iMessage to the iOS folks and a txt to the others. Then what happens when I switch from my iPhone to my iPad, does that group chat show up? Does it only show up with iOS users OR (and this would be the holy grail) does it allow me to txt from my iPad using only data (cellular or wifi)? Anyone running iOS5 beta know the answers to this?
What I want to know is, can I txt someone from an iPod or iPad?
No, you can't send SMS messages from a device that has no capability to send SMS messages nor a device that has no present capability to add texting plans (respectively). Why would you think that? How would the carriers charge you?
What I want to know is, can I txt someone from an iPod or iPad? iMessages on iPhone lets you send txt to anyone and iMessage to other iOS device users. Is the same thing true on the iPad/iPod, or does those apps only show conversations with other iOs device users? If the latter is true, then it is not quite seamless, especially when sending a group message to a number of people, only some of whom are on iOS. I presume in that case it sends an iMessage to the iOS folks and a txt to the others. Then what happens when I switch from my iPhone to my iPad, does that group chat show up? Does it only show up with iOS users OR (and this would be the holy grail) does it allow me to txt from my iPad using only data (cellular or wifi)? Anyone running iOS5 beta know the answers to this?
According to MacRumors, or some other places I've seen, when you select your destination, the Message app checks to see if that is a known iOS5 user. If it is, it automagically changes to an iMessage. iPod Touch and iPad running iOS5 will be able to send and receive iMessages with any other iOS5 device. It will appear as a SMS text message in the Messages app, but that's appearances only as the back end protocols are doing different things.
The things I don't understand are how these automatic processes work when you have a mixed group of iOS5 and iOS4 recipients / or iOS5 iPad with BB, WP, or Goog phones.
I believe it'll probably work like it does now where you start typing a contact's name and then you either have to select their Apple ID or their Mobile (non-iOS) number.... so you could have multiple thread conversations with the same person based on where you were talking previously.
That problem goes away if the recipient is only running iOS5 devices as the conversations all meld and update into 1 thread regardless of the device used.
No, you can't send SMS messages from a device that has no capability to send SMS messages nor a device that has no present capability to add texting plans (respectively). Why would you think that? How would the carriers charge you?
I think what they are trying to ask is if I own an iPhone and I have my SMS plan. So I update my iPad and iPhone to iOS 5. Great. I start messaging a fellow iOS5 friend and it switches to iMessaging and I can respond to them on both my iPad and iPhone. If I message someone via a normal SMS who doesn't have an iPhone will those messages also appear on my iPad and can I respond from there using the plan of my iPhone? To me, this makes sense and something Apple could most certainly probably do if the wanted - the question is if they will. It also might please the carriers because it makes it easier for people to send more SMSs.
Right? If it could do this, I would die of happiness.
Comments
it only "seems sad to you" because you read the stupid write-up on Reddit instead of actually looking at the picture.
Both it and the next one clearly show Jobs smiling, and his wife smiling back at him. He's not exhausted, and you can totally tell quite easily by looking at the pictures as well as the ones on either side, as well as simply watching the freaking Keynote.
These are pictures of a happy man at the top of his game and it's ridiculously obvious that they are, if (again), you actually look at the pictures (closely).
Okay, may be I am seeing patterns where there are none. As for the keynote I felt the same looking at it and reading the many audience tweets.
Any how I will be glad being wrong.
This was trending on reddit. And I thought I should post. Things don't look too well. At least to me, or any one else who has seen them.
Steve Jobs rests his head against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, after delivering the keynote address to the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference at Moscone West on Monday.
That's definitely a pic of a man very much in love with his wife. Very touching if you ask me.
iMessage is only useful if every single person in the world has an iOS Device. SMS/MMS are global standards that exist on every text device regardless of maker. iMessage is proprietary. It will have limited appeal but for me, most of my contacts do not have iOS devices (yet) and some will never have one (love Androids).
Talk about having it arse-backwards...
This was trending on reddit. And I thought I should post. Things don't look too well. At least to me, or any one else who has seen them.
Steve Jobs rests his head against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, after delivering the keynote address to the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference at Moscone West on Monday.
This is like some of the images in any beginning psychology book: The interpretation is up to the viewer. Without ANY backup whatsoever, you can't say what is the truth or not. Only what you think, which may or may not be correct.
So without an official statement, just assume he's good and keep buying Apple!
This is like some of the images in any beginning psychology book: The interpretation is up to the viewer. Without ANY backup whatsoever, you can't say what is the truth or not.
Sorry, but I can't agree. We do have backup in both his well-known medical history and his obvious weight loss. I happen to be the same age as Jobs as was my late wife. I watched her slowly perish from cancer-induced liver failure and I'm sorry to say there are too many similarities with Jobs. But even though his life expectancy has probably been seriously reduced, we can be thrilled that he's still vertical and appreciate all his enormous contributions today, and hope for even more tomorrow.
Just like veins are dumb pipes but without them you'd die rather quickly.
What's your point? We were discussing the feasibility of an M&A scenario.
Apple acknowledges the utility of a cellular company, they just don't see those sort of companies as worthwhile acquisitions. They don't really fit into Apple's business model. Heck, Apple doesn't market cheapo netbooks.
Apple is highly selective about where they put their effort. There is nothing in Apple's behavior that indicates any sort of interest whatsoever in acquiring a mobile operator.
Yes, Steve Jobs probably understands the importance of oxygen, yet Apple is not investing in that.
Let's keep this discussion on track and relevant to what Apple's business is, okay?
Though, where I get stuck is if I have a friend with a BB and an iPad, one day I may text using Messages SMS to BB and a while later send iMessages to his iPad. These will probably show up as separate conversation strings and I can see that it might get annoying sorting through your multiple conversations with the same name individual and figuring out which conversation is going where.
The problem already exists for anyone with 2 phone numbers that you text. You may have 1 contact with 2 phone numbers that they use and the Messages conversation list just lists them by Contact name. These Conversation lists need to display Contact Name + tag to differentiate, and I'm not sure Apple is going to do that.
Wouldn't it be great if Apple just bought Sprint, hired a few PHD's, called AppleMobille and only sold iPhones and iPad's from their Apple stores and online. With an unlimited plan for $49.95 for your iPhones and iPad!
How many people would stay with Verizon and ATT...3?
No advertising, no Sprint stores, one simple bill = no customer service or billing staff. Bill through iTunes.
P.S. Then buy a SatTV company! All channels, $29.95/mo.
I am convinced this will happen, but for reasons I am writing a big post on for some websites to start discussion. Basically, Apple could buy Sprint and never need it to make any money as a network provider.
The majority of my text messages are to groups of people ("Meet in pub at 9") and the iPhone is quite good at this as you can just scroll back through the list of previous messages and pick the group you want to send a message to.
Within groups, some people may have iPhones, others won't and it would be dumb and frustrating to use 2 different ways to send a message to a group of people.
The client must keep notifying the server that the user is online in order for other users to see that the user is available, but this requires regular network activity, which in turn demands precious battery life. A chat client capable of servicing various IM services would have to do this for each IM network it supported, quickly using lots of battery just to enable basic chat functionality with users on each chat service, a poor tradeoff between end user value and battery life consumption.
If you're going to make a claim like this, at least back it up with some figures. How many hours less battery life should a user expect in real world conditions? What's the cost for the first IM service connected to? What's the cost for subsequent services?
Specially when the same conversation can continue thru multiple apps depending on minute-to-minute circumstances.
It doesn't matter what app they have used to send the message, only that there is a message.
The message itself will have the return info needed to start the right app.
The client must keep notifying the server that the user is online in order for other users to see that the user is available, but this requires regular network activity, which in turn demands precious battery life. A chat client capable of servicing various IM services would have to do this for each IM network it supported, quickly using lots of battery just to enable basic chat functionality with users on each chat service, a poor tradeoff between end user value and battery life consumption.
Rather than bringing one or more proprietary IM chat services to iOS (as it has done in iChat for Mac users), Apple instead prioritized the development of two other services: the first being push messaging used for both app notifications and push email and contacts, and the second being FaceTime. Both services internally use an IM-like system to deliver alert notifications, push messages or incoming FaceTime calls, and in all cases the technology used is open XMPP messages.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
So if I've got this right, iMessage doesn't actually use any less power as it has to do the same thing. But your phone will be doing this anyway for Facetime and therefore it's using less power due to it being one service.
However if they supported MS or Googles IM for people who used them, and those people also used email from them, then the service also wouldn't use any extra power as the phone is already checking in with the propriatory service for email push notifications.
So if your a user who uses push services from Google and not Facetime then iMessage will use more power than if they had made it work with Googles IM. Potentially it's also not going to make that much difference as iPhones are constantly sending and recieving data anyway.
What's your point? We were discussing the feasibility of an M&A scenario.
Apple acknowledges the utility of a cellular company, they just don't see those sort of companies as worthwhile acquisitions. They don't really fit into Apple's business model. Heck, Apple doesn't market cheapo netbooks.
Apple is highly selective about where they put their effort. There is nothing in Apple's behavior that indicates any sort of interest whatsoever in acquiring a mobile operator.
Yes, Steve Jobs probably understands the importance of oxygen, yet Apple is not investing in that.
Let's keep this discussion on track and relevant to what Apple's business is, okay?
My point has nothing to do with Apple acquiring a carrier. Simply that the so called dumb pipes carry the life's blood of our devices, our calls, emails, SMS/MMS, internet, etc....and they're job like any other business is to maximize profits.
What I want to know is, can I txt someone from an iPod or iPad?
No, you can't send SMS messages from a device that has no capability to send SMS messages nor a device that has no present capability to add texting plans (respectively). Why would you think that? How would the carriers charge you?
What I want to know is, can I txt someone from an iPod or iPad? iMessages on iPhone lets you send txt to anyone and iMessage to other iOS device users. Is the same thing true on the iPad/iPod, or does those apps only show conversations with other iOs device users? If the latter is true, then it is not quite seamless, especially when sending a group message to a number of people, only some of whom are on iOS. I presume in that case it sends an iMessage to the iOS folks and a txt to the others. Then what happens when I switch from my iPhone to my iPad, does that group chat show up? Does it only show up with iOS users OR (and this would be the holy grail) does it allow me to txt from my iPad using only data (cellular or wifi)? Anyone running iOS5 beta know the answers to this?
According to MacRumors, or some other places I've seen, when you select your destination, the Message app checks to see if that is a known iOS5 user. If it is, it automagically changes to an iMessage. iPod Touch and iPad running iOS5 will be able to send and receive iMessages with any other iOS5 device. It will appear as a SMS text message in the Messages app, but that's appearances only as the back end protocols are doing different things.
The things I don't understand are how these automatic processes work when you have a mixed group of iOS5 and iOS4 recipients / or iOS5 iPad with BB, WP, or Goog phones.
I believe it'll probably work like it does now where you start typing a contact's name and then you either have to select their Apple ID or their Mobile (non-iOS) number.... so you could have multiple thread conversations with the same person based on where you were talking previously.
That problem goes away if the recipient is only running iOS5 devices as the conversations all meld and update into 1 thread regardless of the device used.
No, you can't send SMS messages from a device that has no capability to send SMS messages nor a device that has no present capability to add texting plans (respectively). Why would you think that? How would the carriers charge you?
I think what they are trying to ask is if I own an iPhone and I have my SMS plan. So I update my iPad and iPhone to iOS 5. Great. I start messaging a fellow iOS5 friend and it switches to iMessaging and I can respond to them on both my iPad and iPhone. If I message someone via a normal SMS who doesn't have an iPhone will those messages also appear on my iPad and can I respond from there using the plan of my iPhone? To me, this makes sense and something Apple could most certainly probably do if the wanted - the question is if they will. It also might please the carriers because it makes it easier for people to send more SMSs.
Right? If it could do this, I would die of happiness.
He knows iMessage is not cross platform.
Neither is BBM, and it's rather popular.