bac4Christ
Nov 17, 12:32 PM
I'm sure that somewhere in their headquarters Apple keeps a build of OS X on AMD like they did with Intel. But Idon't think that anyone outside of Apple will see it at least for several years.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
nwcs
May 4, 07:09 AM
IMO, until the ipad gets this, which is entirely possible, it will remain more of a toy than a tool, and all these commercials will be nothing but fodder for the haters.
there's nothing wrong with toys, and this is a nice one, but these lines about doctors, CEOs, etc., are just plain ridiculous.
You're totally wrong. I develop software that is used by hospitals. In fact, I'm writing an iPad app now. Our customers (hospitals) are buying iPads left and right. One hospital just bought 1800 iPads for example. In the HIS world (Hospital Information Systems) there are tons of articles illustrating how iPads are being adopted. A recent article talked about how iOS is trouncing everything else with a 90% share among health professionals.
there's nothing wrong with toys, and this is a nice one, but these lines about doctors, CEOs, etc., are just plain ridiculous.
You're totally wrong. I develop software that is used by hospitals. In fact, I'm writing an iPad app now. Our customers (hospitals) are buying iPads left and right. One hospital just bought 1800 iPads for example. In the HIS world (Hospital Information Systems) there are tons of articles illustrating how iPads are being adopted. A recent article talked about how iOS is trouncing everything else with a 90% share among health professionals.
balamw
Apr 27, 08:07 PM
I have found a tutorial where you can start, stop and reset a timer, I could use that, but I want a datePicker to select time and the tutorial doesn't show that. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmTQi98vec&feature=related
Divide and conquer.
Where he makes the counter count backwards from 600 by hardcoding the initial value in the label, make that a variable that is tied to the datePicker of your choice.
If you want to do it in baby steps, first use two labels one for the input and one for the display to input the starting time and then replace the input one with your datePicker.
B
Divide and conquer.
Where he makes the counter count backwards from 600 by hardcoding the initial value in the label, make that a variable that is tied to the datePicker of your choice.
If you want to do it in baby steps, first use two labels one for the input and one for the display to input the starting time and then replace the input one with your datePicker.
B
mauka
Nov 24, 12:46 PM
At the Honolulu Apple Store I was able to buy a black MacBook, using govt employee discount less black friday discount, total price $1309.00. At first they were saying no double discounts, but after a bit of a stand down myself and another unrelated buyer got the deal. :)
more...
Branskins
Apr 29, 03:45 PM
I wish they would keep the slider buttons. I really really liked them :/
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 01:25 AM
]
I would argue that hybrids are a long term solution.More so plug in hybrids I think are a longer term solution. It allows people to charge for their daily stuff at home. Then for longer trips you have an on board generator of some type to continue to charge the batteries.
So if that best diseal was a hybrid it would have even a longer range and better gas mileage.
Plug-in hybrids put additional strain on the power grid, a strain it cannot currently handle on a large scale. So plugin electrics are not ready for large-scale adoption yet. If electric cars are to be the future, our power grid needs to be made much, much higher capacity AND a lot greener.
Lifestyle choices are always going to trump technology in terms of impact on the environment and saving fuel. If everyone made it a point to buy a more efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle, the impact would be truly staggering. If everyone bought a 10% more efficient car, the fuel savings would add up fast.
We can't rely on technology to pick up the slack and protect us from our own destructive lifestyles. We need to be proactive and make changes, even sacrifices. I admit I still love my sportscars, but they are the least of our worries - it's all the big SUV daily drivers and trucks that are killing us.
I would argue that hybrids are a long term solution.More so plug in hybrids I think are a longer term solution. It allows people to charge for their daily stuff at home. Then for longer trips you have an on board generator of some type to continue to charge the batteries.
So if that best diseal was a hybrid it would have even a longer range and better gas mileage.
Plug-in hybrids put additional strain on the power grid, a strain it cannot currently handle on a large scale. So plugin electrics are not ready for large-scale adoption yet. If electric cars are to be the future, our power grid needs to be made much, much higher capacity AND a lot greener.
Lifestyle choices are always going to trump technology in terms of impact on the environment and saving fuel. If everyone made it a point to buy a more efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle, the impact would be truly staggering. If everyone bought a 10% more efficient car, the fuel savings would add up fast.
We can't rely on technology to pick up the slack and protect us from our own destructive lifestyles. We need to be proactive and make changes, even sacrifices. I admit I still love my sportscars, but they are the least of our worries - it's all the big SUV daily drivers and trucks that are killing us.
NT1440
Mar 4, 02:10 PM
They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
more...
CocoaPuffs
Apr 15, 04:22 PM
Why would Apple change the aesthetic look of iPhone after 3 generations without any added benefit for making the change?
AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 28, 01:24 PM
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
I 100% agree
I 100% agree
more...
Cougarcat
Apr 29, 05:22 PM
Preferred the iOS style scroll bars. Having the thin bar inside the right side gutter looks very odd.
I agree Somehow I don't think it'll look like that in the final version, as the gutter appearance is clearly designed for the older aqua scrollbar.
I agree Somehow I don't think it'll look like that in the final version, as the gutter appearance is clearly designed for the older aqua scrollbar.
digitalbiker
Oct 4, 10:11 AM
Clovertown doesn't ship until November so I'm thinking Apple could add a BTO option for them +$800 for Dual Quad 2.33GHz Clovertowns in December without rocking too many boats. Then the choice will be between 4 fast 3GHz cores (12GHz) or 8 slower 2.33GHz cores (18.64GHz) for the same $3,300.
FYI Each of those processors are priced precisely the same $851 - in case you thought 8 cores were going to cost more. They won't.
I'm afraid the new Intel Apple is going to be the same as the old PPC Apple.
Apple, (in the past), always blamed slow implementation of new processors and long shipping wait times on low Motorola or IBM processor yields.
Now Apple doesn't have the same excuse with Intel but I bet we don't see a Merom MBP or an Octo-MacPro until MacWorld SF or later.
Anyone taking bets!
FYI Each of those processors are priced precisely the same $851 - in case you thought 8 cores were going to cost more. They won't.
I'm afraid the new Intel Apple is going to be the same as the old PPC Apple.
Apple, (in the past), always blamed slow implementation of new processors and long shipping wait times on low Motorola or IBM processor yields.
Now Apple doesn't have the same excuse with Intel but I bet we don't see a Merom MBP or an Octo-MacPro until MacWorld SF or later.
Anyone taking bets!
more...
jholzner
Sep 12, 08:45 AM
please read the thread....
When you come across a bit of information that seems to point to some sort of confirmation to a rumor do you read 9 pages of threads or do you just post it? I scolled through real quick to see if the image had been posted and didn't see it. Lay off.
When you come across a bit of information that seems to point to some sort of confirmation to a rumor do you read 9 pages of threads or do you just post it? I scolled through real quick to see if the image had been posted and didn't see it. Lay off.
Popeye206
Apr 5, 04:44 PM
Seems silly... would be useful if you got coupons or something special out of the Ads.
Silly App.
Silly App.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 10:34 PM
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
samcraig
May 2, 10:57 AM
Some facts for the learning challenged.
1. The original DB was set at 2MB. Of ASCII text. As "engineers" you would think Apple would understand and know how "large" that cache is. They claim they didn't realize how much data could be stored in 2MB.
2. This was brought to their attention over a year ago - not a week ago.
3. The file should have always been encrypted.
4. Those getting pissy at people who are calling Apple out on this or are blaming the customer since Apple has it in their EULA that they collect data so it's no big deal should consider that if the switch to turn of Data Roaming FAILED and people were charged up the wazoo - people would be demanding refunds for that data and would demand a fix.
So don't get all pissy for people who just think that the Location Services on/off switch should actually work. Having it NOT work is actually a violation of the EULA so many of the posters here are using as a defense.
I'm glad that the OS is being fixed. I'm glad Apple got caught/are responding to "bugs" that they obviously missed during QA.
1. The original DB was set at 2MB. Of ASCII text. As "engineers" you would think Apple would understand and know how "large" that cache is. They claim they didn't realize how much data could be stored in 2MB.
2. This was brought to their attention over a year ago - not a week ago.
3. The file should have always been encrypted.
4. Those getting pissy at people who are calling Apple out on this or are blaming the customer since Apple has it in their EULA that they collect data so it's no big deal should consider that if the switch to turn of Data Roaming FAILED and people were charged up the wazoo - people would be demanding refunds for that data and would demand a fix.
So don't get all pissy for people who just think that the Location Services on/off switch should actually work. Having it NOT work is actually a violation of the EULA so many of the posters here are using as a defense.
I'm glad that the OS is being fixed. I'm glad Apple got caught/are responding to "bugs" that they obviously missed during QA.
more...
longofest
Oct 28, 02:57 PM
That's hardly surprising. I'm more interested in the 100% legal bit - it's interesting that Apple hasn't yet moved to explicitly ban running OS X on non-Apple hardware.
It's not necessarily illegal to run Darwin on non-Apple hardware, which is much of the goals of the OSx86 project. The source as it comes from Apple will only run on Apple hardware mainly due to EFI and some other stuff. The GUI is what seems to be so tied to the TPM circuitry, which is what OSx86 is NOT touching and why they say it's still legal.
It's not necessarily illegal to run Darwin on non-Apple hardware, which is much of the goals of the OSx86 project. The source as it comes from Apple will only run on Apple hardware mainly due to EFI and some other stuff. The GUI is what seems to be so tied to the TPM circuitry, which is what OSx86 is NOT touching and why they say it's still legal.
paradox00
May 3, 03:23 PM
Shocking that carriers would take steps to stop people from stealing service from them.
You did not pay for tethering data. That is a separate charge. By circumventing the system you are stealing. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
It is not a gray area.. it is black and white. The contracts specifically say the data you pay for does not include tethering. Tethering costs extra.
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
You did not pay for tethering data. That is a separate charge. By circumventing the system you are stealing. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
It is not a gray area.. it is black and white. The contracts specifically say the data you pay for does not include tethering. Tethering costs extra.
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 08:59 AM
Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it. ... But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. ... If Jobs wanted a modern building ... then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 06:23 PM
Your idea sounds a lot like Bill Gate's smart fridge telling the us that our milk is going bad and that we should buy a new carton the next time we are at the supermarket.:D :D
Cinch
You just wait. Soon your Mac will send you a message saying it wants more RAM and a processor upgrade the next time you�re visiting the Apple Store. :D :eek:
Cinch
You just wait. Soon your Mac will send you a message saying it wants more RAM and a processor upgrade the next time you�re visiting the Apple Store. :D :eek:
The General
Apr 15, 04:06 PM
doesn't look photoshopped to me. looks like three photos of a real object. i dont think it's actually the body of the next iphone. if aluminum didnt work out so well for reception on the OG iphone, why would it work on the new one?
the flat surfaces are something i doubt apple would do.
the slot and square hole on the side are obviously supposed to be holes for the silent switch and volume up and down.
the flat surfaces are something i doubt apple would do.
the slot and square hole on the side are obviously supposed to be holes for the silent switch and volume up and down.
JustSayGrr
Sep 29, 11:18 PM
I understand that the plans have to be submitted to local planning authorities for architectural and engineering reviews, etc. but I think I'd be a little upset at even the rough floor plans making it out on the web out of concern for personal safety. :eek:
I would hope that there are some elaborate physical security features as part of the build out. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it's a relatively modestly sized home on a comparatively large lot size...a physical buffer zone.
I would hope that there are some elaborate physical security features as part of the build out. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it's a relatively modestly sized home on a comparatively large lot size...a physical buffer zone.
quagmire
Nov 14, 08:52 PM
I finally tried playing some of the campaign tonight. I've only made it about 4 missions in, but so far I can safely say, it is the worst thing I've ever played. It is nothing but endless sequences of "monster closet" events, with little to no indication as to what you are supposed to be doing, with your crappy "Partners" doing nothing but yelling incomprehensible things at you. Quite a mess.
Yeah. I liked MW2's campaign better. It may be because I am from the DC area so it was quite weird seeing it war torn.
Yeah. I liked MW2's campaign better. It may be because I am from the DC area so it was quite weird seeing it war torn.
palebluedot
Mar 28, 09:31 PM
What I don't get is why wouldn't any developer want to distribute through the MacApp store? Unless they make a vertical market product (like my company and we would never use any mass-market distribution channel) I can't see why a developer wouldn't?
And please.... don't cry about the 30% margin... it's so freak'n fair by all software distribution practices that is not a reason for any developer not to want to use the AppStore as a channel.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
Game developers. World of Warcraft. Adobe. Microsoft. All of these developers not only do not distribute on the App Store but can not due to the App Store's TOS. I like the App Store but the control/terms keep a lot of great programs (like World of Warcraft, which one the Apple Design Award multiple times I think) out.
And please.... don't cry about the 30% margin... it's so freak'n fair by all software distribution practices that is not a reason for any developer not to want to use the AppStore as a channel.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
Game developers. World of Warcraft. Adobe. Microsoft. All of these developers not only do not distribute on the App Store but can not due to the App Store's TOS. I like the App Store but the control/terms keep a lot of great programs (like World of Warcraft, which one the Apple Design Award multiple times I think) out.
