Is the Unix shell possible under iPhoneOS?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Preview cant open and display images
Next: scanning txt
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 01:11 In article <jollyroger-EC5D3A.23144207032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > Here's a quote from someone who has actually used an iPad, and therefore > > > describes it better than I could, or care to: > > > > nothing he said contradicts what i said. > > You said the OS and software was "for the most part, the same". correct. both are iphone os. > Mossberg, who, unlike you, has actually used an iPad, says the software > is significantly different on the iPad: "Apple has rewritten most of the > core iPhone apps so they look more like, and have more of the features > of, Mac or PC programs". the ipad is running iphone os 3.2 versus 3.1.3 on the iphone. although there is a difference, it's not as big as you seem to think. sign up as a developer and find out the gory details. the biggest noticeable difference are the new user interface elements that are possible on a larger screen. for example: <http://images.apple.com/ipad/gallery/images/gallery-software-mail-20100 127.jpg> > > > > I love how these dumb asses make the flawed assumption that > > > > the OS and software running on the iPad must be exactly the > > > > same as what's running on iPods... > > Again: The OS AND SOFTWARE running on the iPad is NOT THE SAME as what > is found on iPods. by your reasoning, the os and software of a new mac (10.6) is not the same as a mac bought a year ago (10.5). not only is the os different, but almost all of the apps have been rewritten to be 64 bit. > You're wrong. Just admit it and move on. right after you.
From: David Empson on 8 Mar 2010 01:17 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1jf18g4.1u94of51sas57mN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, David > Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > > > Click on the link "Q1 2010 Form 10-Q filed January 25, 2010" to download > > the PDF. > > i used q2 2009 since i happened to have a copy handy, but nevertheless, > > > Scroll down to page 35 for the detailed breakdown, under the "Net Sales > > By Product" heading: > > > > Desktops (a) 1,692 > > Portables (b) 2,758 > > Total Mac net sales 4,450 > > iPod 3,391 > > Other music related products and services (c) 1,164 > > iPhone and related products and services (d) 5,578 > > Peripherals and other hardware (e) 469 > > Software, service and other sales (f) 631 > > Total net sales 15,683 > > add up the non-hardware portions: > > Other music related products and services (c) 1,164 > > Software, service and other sales (f) 631 > and take 1/3rd of the iphone portion (because the exact proportion > between the iphone itself and carrier kickbacks is not known). Most of the carrier kickbacks count as part of the hardware price of the iPhone, not towards software or content sales. The only part which is arguable is the AT&T income sharing arrangement on the first generation iPhones, which are now a relatively small proportion of the total number of iPhones. Even then, this counts as extra revenue on the hardware or arguably "service" income, not software. In countries where the iPhone is not subsidised by carrier contracts, its full cost is evident: in New Zealand, the 16 GB iPhone 3GS is NZ$1149 on the Apple Store. After excluding GST and an estimated 10% markup (which seems to apply to everything Apple sells in countries other than the US, for protection against currency fluctuation and some extra shipping costs), this works out to about US$640 at the current exchange rate, compared to US$199 subsidised price in the US. In Apple's quarterly report, the carrier subsidies are counted as part of the same total as hardware sales, because they are paying for the hardware. > > iPhone and related products and services (d) 5,578 > > and you get 3654 out of 15683, for 23%. that's not what i'd call > negligible. And in any case, the iTunes Store net sales figure is the revenue for the iTunes store, prior to taking out the developers' or studios' cuts, so multiply that figure by 30% to get the actual revenue left for Apple (prior to expenses for running the service). Apple certainly does not make very much money from the iTunes Store in comparison to sales of iPods and iPhones. There is no evidence from the quarterly report to justify a claim that 30% (or even 23%) of their gross revenue comes from software. You might have a valid point if you were commenting that Apple's hardware sales figures include a significant component to recover the cost of software development incorporated into that product, but we don't have enough information to quantify that. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Jolly Roger on 8 Mar 2010 11:11 In article <070320102211015984%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-8E1CB3.23053807032010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > > the os is identical other than the new features in the ipad sdk, most > > > of which will probably be in the next version of the iphone os. very > > > little is specific to the large screen. > > > > You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. > > talk is cheap. point out what's wrong. What's wrong is how you conveniently glaze over the new features as if they are not important at all. You haven't a clue. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 14:36 In article <jollyroger-4B60F5.10115608032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. > > > > talk is cheap. point out what's wrong. > > What's wrong is how you conveniently glaze over the new features as if > they are not important at all. You haven't a clue. in other words, you can't point out what's wrong and resort to ad hominem attacks. thank you for conceding.
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 14:41
In article <jollyroger-0E8F25.10104508032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > The software is significantly different. it isn't. > Apple's changed many > applications on the iPad to be more like desktop applications. And it's > doubtful they would be able to function the same or have the same > features on an iPhone. that's mainly because the screen is too small. also, an update to the iphone is due, and as i said before, quite a bit of what's new in 3.2 will be on the iphone. comparing a new revision of the operating system and new apps against something that's a year old and about to be updated is disingenuous. > The iPad software is not "for the most part the same". then how is it that almost all of the existing 150,000 apps run on it without any modification? the only ones that don't are those that require a camera or a phone (and the same limitation exists for the ipod touch which lacks both as well). |