Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 08:11 AM
Once you start using it, you'll find that the Mac OS is a much more intuitive system, but you may have to unlearn the ways of the windows. With the Mac, the desktop paradigm is fully realised - so if you want to move something from one place to another, you do it just as you would in the real world, by picking it up and dropping it where you want it. Don't worry about opening the destination first, as the finder will automatically open windows for you.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
G58
Jun 21, 11:50 PM
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 05:04 PM
I will not be surprised. This is similar to what happened to Apple and PC makers back in the days. Just the sheer volume of PC producers finally lifted Windows above OS X. I believe similar trend will follow on for mobile market. More and more phone makers will adopt Android or Windows Mobile and overtake Iphone OS.
So why hasn't Windows Mobile ever been really successful? I think we can rule them out. Like most MS products, they don't dominate the market enough to succeed. Cellular phones are very saturated market wise.
So why hasn't Windows Mobile ever been really successful? I think we can rule them out. Like most MS products, they don't dominate the market enough to succeed. Cellular phones are very saturated market wise.
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
That's weird.
A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "�ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.
They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.
A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "�ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.
They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
Vegasman
Apr 28, 11:09 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
Companies that "ship" stuff that people don't buy do not stay in business very long. Therefore, "shipping" is a good enough approximation 99% of the time. The other 1% is quickly identified and purged from the economy.
Companies that "ship" stuff that people don't buy do not stay in business very long. Therefore, "shipping" is a good enough approximation 99% of the time. The other 1% is quickly identified and purged from the economy.
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 08:50 PM
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:51 AM
The iPad is a companion device and not a true PC. I know people here will disagree with me since the numbers help Apple so much, but they just shouldn't be included with these numbers.
Backtothemac
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 05:33 AM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
unlinked
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Ivan0310
Apr 28, 07:39 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
It will be. This is just barely scratching the surface.
I don't want a full OS in a tablet like the iPad. The beauty of iOS that you don't ever need to worry about file placement. Limited functionality might be nice, but a full OS like OS X on a tablet is the wrong way to go.
I don't want a full OS in a tablet like the iPad. The beauty of iOS that you don't ever need to worry about file placement. Limited functionality might be nice, but a full OS like OS X on a tablet is the wrong way to go.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 11:13 AM
Do you think the market can sustain four gaming companies?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
fatfreddy
Mar 11, 04:46 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=016_1299829101
More footage.
More footage.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 05:10 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
DeathChill
Apr 21, 12:08 AM
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
