the future
Sep 12, 07:59 AM
Film content from Fox and Dreamworks?!
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
tjhilder
May 2, 04:03 PM
Hopefully it'll fix the bug I get when I want to have a song on repeat, seems to ignore the first song played and then it works on the second :(
Jerry Spoon
Sep 12, 07:31 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
Remember that when tv shows were first made available, there weren't many to choose from.
Even if it is just Disney right now, that along with new iPods is enough for this much hype, especially when they want the press before the holiday season.
Remember that when tv shows were first made available, there weren't many to choose from.
Even if it is just Disney right now, that along with new iPods is enough for this much hype, especially when they want the press before the holiday season.
turbobass
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :rolleyes:
Thanks for the passing insult however I think I was pretty clear that your use for it was one I hadn't considered and also a rare case that made this app actually useful. I apologize for recognizing your rare and interesting situation.
Thanks for the passing insult however I think I was pretty clear that your use for it was one I hadn't considered and also a rare case that made this app actually useful. I apologize for recognizing your rare and interesting situation.
more...
drsmithy
Oct 5, 02:02 AM
lets hope for a great keynote:
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
Much as I'd love this, it ain't going to happen. Users have been begging for such a machine since Apple slimmed down their product line in the late '90s and left that gaping hole in it, but to no avail.
Apple won't release such a machine because they know it would absolutely slaughter high margin PowerMac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac Pro sales unless ridiculously (and obviously) artificially crippled. A secondary effect would be the loss of sales on their high-margin LCDs.
So, while the market for such a machine is massive, Apple won't sell directly to them because they make more money by "up-selling" them to a Mac Pro or high-end iMac.
2- media center to complement the Itv
They've already got one - the Mac Mini (I've got one running Windows MCE and it's great). Maybe an update to Front Row so that it's an equivalent to Windows MCE...
I must admit I don't see the point of the iTV at all when you can get a console like the Xbox 360 for the same price that will do everything the iTV is supposed to do and more.
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
Much as I'd love this, it ain't going to happen. Users have been begging for such a machine since Apple slimmed down their product line in the late '90s and left that gaping hole in it, but to no avail.
Apple won't release such a machine because they know it would absolutely slaughter high margin PowerMac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac Pro sales unless ridiculously (and obviously) artificially crippled. A secondary effect would be the loss of sales on their high-margin LCDs.
So, while the market for such a machine is massive, Apple won't sell directly to them because they make more money by "up-selling" them to a Mac Pro or high-end iMac.
2- media center to complement the Itv
They've already got one - the Mac Mini (I've got one running Windows MCE and it's great). Maybe an update to Front Row so that it's an equivalent to Windows MCE...
I must admit I don't see the point of the iTV at all when you can get a console like the Xbox 360 for the same price that will do everything the iTV is supposed to do and more.
![labeled earthworm diagram. labeled earthworm diagram. B earthworm at labeled; B earthworm at labeled. AJsAWiz. Sep 3, 08:51 AM. [QUOTEAJsAWiz;10979023]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_trVkVViUkfRxorLsgDAIEa9HO29bYlMbQzlXBXtmTQZsedJam_q2mwFpvYgf2XNjqWA7vR2LReiH0I6huTEgkksc_3PUAKLynB9dbWY-z-v_VgflU=s0-d "labeled earthworm diagram. B earthworm at labeled; B earthworm at labeled. AJsAWiz. Sep 3, 08:51 AM. [QUOTEAJsAWiz;10979023]")
CharBroiled20s
Oct 11, 04:22 PM
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
more...
0010101
Oct 29, 01:34 AM
The problem with Apple making a 'PC' version of OSX is that they'd have to write it to work with a million different combinations of hardware.. one of the reasons XP is such a crappy OS.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.
p8ntballguy
Oct 10, 10:41 PM
...and an integrated spell-checker! :D
lol yea....like i said, it was quickly done....fixed:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/984/ipodmockge4.jpg
lol yea....like i said, it was quickly done....fixed:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/984/ipodmockge4.jpg
more...
eternlgladiator
Apr 8, 11:48 AM
I've been waiting all week for this to finally become available. I can't wait!
I'm going to upgrade it to a 128 GB SSD when I get it. It'll be a monster.
I'm going to upgrade it to a 128 GB SSD when I get it. It'll be a monster.
OdduWon
Oct 11, 10:46 PM
it would be a shame if apple only made the ipod cinema a wide screen ipod with lite quicktime like functions. zune though flushable has something going for it....you can actually use it to do things without a computer. chat w/ friends, set screen savers, share music, wifi. its like a psp that you can fit in one hand (minus the three good psp games ). ipod need to be a portable ilife interface. it should have full connectivity with itv and be able to surf and chat.front row type interface would be cool or even key not like! itunes mobile will help to conquour the evil beast that is comming zoon. we cannot let zune get a foothold or developers may come to the aid of dollar bill and create the windows " it's what im used to" syndrome, people will be stuck with these little turds and they will love it because they can myspace on them.
more...
TheMacBookPro
Mar 19, 06:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
One a slightly more serious note- the 'haters' hate the iPhone because of 1)Jobs and his (stupid) smug-ness (iPhone is the best phone the world. The screen is far better than anything else. Everyone is copying us, we are the benchmark and everyone else should bugger off) and 2)the fanboys who lap it all up and 'spreads the word' like door to door salesmen.
Then, when someone disagrees with them (God forbid), the fanboys call the 'iHaters' retards because obviously the iPhone is the best, Android users are just too poor to afford an iphone and thats why we 'envy' (LOL) iUsers and so on.
Rant directed at nobody in particular. Just getting it out of my system.
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
One a slightly more serious note- the 'haters' hate the iPhone because of 1)Jobs and his (stupid) smug-ness (iPhone is the best phone the world. The screen is far better than anything else. Everyone is copying us, we are the benchmark and everyone else should bugger off) and 2)the fanboys who lap it all up and 'spreads the word' like door to door salesmen.
Then, when someone disagrees with them (God forbid), the fanboys call the 'iHaters' retards because obviously the iPhone is the best, Android users are just too poor to afford an iphone and thats why we 'envy' (LOL) iUsers and so on.
Rant directed at nobody in particular. Just getting it out of my system.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 02:40 PM
You forgot something. You are comparing diesel to unleaded even in hybrid form. You need to compare the generators (unlead to unlead). Now image if those very high gas mileage diesel running as a hybrid.
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
more...
Aeolius
Oct 19, 06:07 PM
I am the first person to coin this term: iHome
Ummmm.....
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/11/13/ihome_ih26_1.jpg
Ummmm.....
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/11/13/ihome_ih26_1.jpg
iBug2
Apr 30, 10:04 PM
Me and most everyone I know owns a truck..
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
more...
bbplayer5
May 3, 02:29 PM
1. Root
2. XDA Forum
3. Side load
4. ???
5. Winning.
2. XDA Forum
3. Side load
4. ???
5. Winning.
nicroma
Apr 29, 01:51 PM
What stage will this be stable enough to use as your main OS? :apple:
10.7.1 or .2 is the rule I go by.
10.7.1 or .2 is the rule I go by.
more...
Abstract
Apr 7, 05:28 AM
Nice Volvo! Love the look of their wagons.
WildPalms
Jan 15, 04:12 PM
Three new toys to own (MacBook Air, :apple:tv 2, and Time Capsule) plus an update for my existing toy - iPhone.
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
You're easily pleased... I have a piece of wool my cat likes to play with but I'm sure she wont mind sharing with you...:p
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
You're easily pleased... I have a piece of wool my cat likes to play with but I'm sure she wont mind sharing with you...:p
Abstract
Jan 12, 08:10 AM
If it's an iPod first then why's it got such ****** capacity? Why's it called the iPhone? Seriously, are you a genuine music producer that's happy to walk around with just 8 gigs worth of music?
I don't carry around a 400 gig seagate hard drive - I carry around a 60 gig iPod because it does a great job.
And I have an iPod Nano 4 GB because it does a great job, while remaining small and thin. If you were expecting an HDD based phone from Apple, you're crazy. They wouldn't want to make such a fat phone, and I wouldn't want one. Fact is that an mp3 player with 8 GB capacity is on the high end in todays market.
I don't carry around a 400 gig seagate hard drive - I carry around a 60 gig iPod because it does a great job.
And I have an iPod Nano 4 GB because it does a great job, while remaining small and thin. If you were expecting an HDD based phone from Apple, you're crazy. They wouldn't want to make such a fat phone, and I wouldn't want one. Fact is that an mp3 player with 8 GB capacity is on the high end in todays market.
someguy
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
Will we be able to watch this event live? How will coverage (if there will be any) be brought to us?
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 01:20 AM
"Haters"?
Attack of the 16 year olds.
Explains a lot.
I hope he sold you a stolen iPad and you get arrested.
Attack of the 16 year olds.
Explains a lot.
I hope he sold you a stolen iPad and you get arrested.
chrmjenkins
Dec 13, 12:33 PM
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 09:24 PM
Update **
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
0010101
Oct 29, 01:34 AM
The problem with Apple making a 'PC' version of OSX is that they'd have to write it to work with a million different combinations of hardware.. one of the reasons XP is such a crappy OS.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.