Sun Baked
Oct 23, 08:56 AM
Watch, it probably really means it instantly voids the MS support part of the Vista purchase for that license.
Would be just peachy that Apple offers zero support for running Vista on a Mac, and MS does the same for those doing it via virtualization.
Probably forsee a support headache coming down the path. :p
Would be just peachy that Apple offers zero support for running Vista on a Mac, and MS does the same for those doing it via virtualization.
Probably forsee a support headache coming down the path. :p
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:37 PM
Since he's dead doesn't this technically mean that the "War on Terror" is technically over?
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
manu chao
May 3, 08:16 AM
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
You need some strong suction cups to remove the screen (the whole back chassis is one piece, the only access is via the screen) and more importantly a dust-free environment, otherwise when you put the screen back on (or rather the glass pane in front of the actual screen) you can easily trap dust between the glass and the monitor.
The difficult thing is the dust-free environment.
You need some strong suction cups to remove the screen (the whole back chassis is one piece, the only access is via the screen) and more importantly a dust-free environment, otherwise when you put the screen back on (or rather the glass pane in front of the actual screen) you can easily trap dust between the glass and the monitor.
The difficult thing is the dust-free environment.
applefan27073
May 3, 07:57 AM
Awesome! But how do I get it????
Don't say go to the apple store, just did that
Check the link
http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE
Don't say go to the apple store, just did that
Check the link
http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE
SeanZy
Mar 11, 02:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)
Also ATT stores only carry 3G version
Also ATT stores only carry 3G version
iamthedudeman
May 3, 08:50 AM
Really good to see the update (finally)... but I am disappointed they didn't bring the 24" back :(
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The biggest thing with the 27 is the yellow hue. Fonts. Glossy. And I like to change out my display and own the latest and greatest quite often, say every two years, or every year due to work at home.
Solution for me was I got a HP brightview 25.5. It is a MVA panel not quite as good viewing angles as the imac 27 IPS but with better black levels, deeper black levels, whiter whites, no yellow hue to speak of. Much better for graphical design work. Brightview technology has me hooked. All the benefits of a glossy and some of the benefits of a matte, less glare than the imac 27.
I have my 21.5 as a extra display and use the 25.5 as my main display in dual mode. Fantastic setup.
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The biggest thing with the 27 is the yellow hue. Fonts. Glossy. And I like to change out my display and own the latest and greatest quite often, say every two years, or every year due to work at home.
Solution for me was I got a HP brightview 25.5. It is a MVA panel not quite as good viewing angles as the imac 27 IPS but with better black levels, deeper black levels, whiter whites, no yellow hue to speak of. Much better for graphical design work. Brightview technology has me hooked. All the benefits of a glossy and some of the benefits of a matte, less glare than the imac 27.
I have my 21.5 as a extra display and use the 25.5 as my main display in dual mode. Fantastic setup.
jessica.
Aug 15, 07:48 PM
Still... meh.
Agreed.
Agreed.
BenRoethig
Jul 25, 08:15 AM
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.
Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.
And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.
2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
being able to choose what you want to do instead of having everything dictated to you by Steve Jobs.
Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.
And you guys accuse PC users of sticking to old stereotypes. If you want to see ugly, take a gaze at the army of external devices that my iMac is going to need. I prefer my cables be inside the case instead of covering my desk.
2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
being able to choose what you want to do instead of having everything dictated to you by Steve Jobs.
MatthewConnelly
Oct 24, 09:01 AM
I'm still holding out for C2D Macbooks, I hope they release them, I don't want a MBP!
dongmin
Jul 21, 12:53 PM
My thoughts exactly.
I wouldn't care if their share is 1%. Just as long as they remain a sound business and keep up the R&D.Marketshare matters.
Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.
The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?
I wouldn't care if their share is 1%. Just as long as they remain a sound business and keep up the R&D.Marketshare matters.
Why? The biggest and the most obvious reason is that developing for and porting software to OS X becomes more attractive to developers. Greater market share also helps Apple in its dealings with major partners like Intel and Microsoft.
The other big benefit for consumers is that we may see more product offerings from Apple as the number of macs sold increases. How about that Mac media center everyone's been talking about? Or the fabled Mac tablet?
mh81
Nov 29, 08:20 PM
These sunglasses are definitely on my list
http://simplysunglasses.com/image.php?type=P&id=3971
http://simplysunglasses.com
http://simplysunglasses.com/image.php?type=P&id=3971
http://simplysunglasses.com
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 26, 11:21 PM
Almost as funny as your daughters face when she discovers that her dad is a brutal bigot who waits outside toilet doors to beat people up (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12453464&postcount=56).
Woah there big boy, calm down.
He is a father who has a daughter, put yourself in his shoes...
Also when did he explicitly state he "waits outside toilet doors to beat people up"?
Woah there big boy, calm down.
He is a father who has a daughter, put yourself in his shoes...
Also when did he explicitly state he "waits outside toilet doors to beat people up"?
dextertangocci
Jul 28, 07:19 AM
It will FAIL!!!!!!!
Idiot M$:rolleyes:
Idiot M$:rolleyes:
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
Tones2
Apr 22, 04:20 PM
Well, there's someone else saying something else. Great. :rolleyes:
Next......
Tony
Next......
Tony
KPOM
Apr 21, 02:06 PM
Which would be better for video editing -- the current MBA or the upcoming Sandy Bridge MBA? (just family videos, nothing hardcore)
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
world wallpaper portrait
Nigh elf. Blood Elf. Draenei.
world lood elves elfrace
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
iMeowbot
Oct 23, 08:34 AM
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.
The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.
This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.
This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.
The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.
This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.
peapody
Jan 26, 10:45 AM
Really? I took the cue from the post count and not page count. I was under the impression that graphic-heavy threads are closed after about 2000 posts.
Haha, I don't care, but it would have been nice to keep it going since I did the last 2 and put some work in tracking down old threads and adding up posts etc etc. Whatever.
Got myself the biggest m*&*#&(*$& snow broom I can find, since it snows like every other day this year
Lol that is what I need! I'm too short for my SUV!
Hmm.. last purchase..
mrs. Fields white chocolate macadamia nibblers. Delish!
*not my pic*
Haha, I don't care, but it would have been nice to keep it going since I did the last 2 and put some work in tracking down old threads and adding up posts etc etc. Whatever.
Got myself the biggest m*&*#&(*$& snow broom I can find, since it snows like every other day this year
Lol that is what I need! I'm too short for my SUV!
Hmm.. last purchase..
mrs. Fields white chocolate macadamia nibblers. Delish!
*not my pic*
Arran
Dec 29, 11:30 AM
Indeed...
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
I rest my case!
And that reminds me, I need a new office chair. Broke the old one.
http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/donna-simpson.jpg
I rest my case!
And that reminds me, I need a new office chair. Broke the old one.
gamer.pro.2000
Apr 18, 11:37 AM
4.3.2 for ATT/Europe iPhone, 4.2.7 for Verizon iPhone...........funny how Apple says Android is fragmented, but has slight fragmentation themselves. I know its an old argument, but its true. Apple need to bring all updates to the same version number with the same feature set. I mean, when the heck is the Verizon iPhone going to get 4.3 already? Also, 2.3.3 Gingerbread for Android is about 80mb ;) .
lifeofart
Jul 12, 06:02 PM
You know, that's a good idea.
Here I was so caught up in the idea of getting it to be a final version, I didn't even think of that. Let the machines that are designed to do this do the work....
(I'm not even going to dignify the other snide poster with a response :rolleyes: )
I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
Here I was so caught up in the idea of getting it to be a final version, I didn't even think of that. Let the machines that are designed to do this do the work....
(I'm not even going to dignify the other snide poster with a response :rolleyes: )
I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
Rapscallion
Apr 14, 07:15 AM
Its the new device that is implanted in your brain....iThought....
Everyone will want one, or else......
Everyone will want one, or else......
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 02:03 PM
Highly unlikely that Apple will release an actual tv. More probable are televsions from major manufacturers that have air play functionality built in.
Agreed.
Why would anybody with limited know how about TV manufacturing go into that field?
USING somebody elses TV to display whatever makes much more sense.
I could see them coming in with a blockbuster smart projector device.
Now we are talking:-)
Agreed.
Why would anybody with limited know how about TV manufacturing go into that field?
USING somebody elses TV to display whatever makes much more sense.
I could see them coming in with a blockbuster smart projector device.
Now we are talking:-)
Auax
Apr 19, 01:46 AM
Does this mean that apple plans to enter the tv market?
Do people have good experiences with apple tv compared with tv of other brands?
Do people have good experiences with apple tv compared with tv of other brands?
No comments:
Post a Comment