shaolindave
May 4, 03:29 PM
two things:
a) Does nobody read?
From TFA:
Granted, I think that the article is a little bit of intentional flamebait because they use wishywashy words like "preferred" to start up a discussion to ratchet up page views.... But come on, people. We all know that every time Macrumors tries to start controversy on a perceived "change" in functionality or standards, nine times out of ten there's more than one option available... '
yes, I'm sure we all read that. it doesn't really answer any questions though.
i have physical versions of iLife and iWork (or did, actually). my family lost our iWork disc. I still have it installed on my hard drive. I COULD buy it from the app store, but it'd cost me full price (again).
what if I buy Lion from the app store, then my computer fails or i replace the hard drive. yes, i do have the option of buying a physical disc, but i'd have to pay full price (again).
if they allow to app store version to be burned to disc or copied to USB drive, awesome, that'll solve the problem. however, so far this is being presented as a digital download, not an alternative means to get a physical copy.
a) Does nobody read?
From TFA:
Granted, I think that the article is a little bit of intentional flamebait because they use wishywashy words like "preferred" to start up a discussion to ratchet up page views.... But come on, people. We all know that every time Macrumors tries to start controversy on a perceived "change" in functionality or standards, nine times out of ten there's more than one option available... '
yes, I'm sure we all read that. it doesn't really answer any questions though.
i have physical versions of iLife and iWork (or did, actually). my family lost our iWork disc. I still have it installed on my hard drive. I COULD buy it from the app store, but it'd cost me full price (again).
what if I buy Lion from the app store, then my computer fails or i replace the hard drive. yes, i do have the option of buying a physical disc, but i'd have to pay full price (again).
if they allow to app store version to be burned to disc or copied to USB drive, awesome, that'll solve the problem. however, so far this is being presented as a digital download, not an alternative means to get a physical copy.
rdowns
Apr 14, 09:44 AM
Long and very interesting article on taxes. Very good read. (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html)
As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know, to consider as you prepare to file your taxes. (All figures are inflation-adjusted.)
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
A corporate tax rate that is too low actually destroys jobs. That�s because a higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don�t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and have to pay high taxes.
The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.
The companies said bringing the money home��repatriating� it, they called it�would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs.
Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Since the law took effect, Pfizer has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.
As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know, to consider as you prepare to file your taxes. (All figures are inflation-adjusted.)
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
A corporate tax rate that is too low actually destroys jobs. That�s because a higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don�t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and have to pay high taxes.
The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.
The companies said bringing the money home��repatriating� it, they called it�would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs.
Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Since the law took effect, Pfizer has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
blow45
Mar 29, 03:47 PM
Could we please get the OOT people here discussing where apple should manufacture their products (or where they can manufacture their products) in separate thread. You guys are imposing here you know? This is a discussion about shortages due to the earthquake not manufacturing locales for apple. An earthquake could have hit the states as well...
MacRumors
Apr 5, 12:58 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-asks-toyota-to-pull-jailbreak-ad-campaign/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/05/135715-4d50435725f85.jpg
Queen Elizabeth I of England
#39;Virgin Queen#39; of England.
Elizabeth I, Queen of England
She was a woman of great
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Regina, Queen of England)
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Portrait Of Queen Elizabeth I
Published 2009/10/19 in Queen
of Queen Elizabeth I of
Queen Elizabeth I of
Elizabeth I of England.
Since 1952, The Queen has
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/05/135715-4d50435725f85.jpg
LordJohnWhorfin
Nov 22, 02:55 AM
oops
-aggie-
May 4, 01:45 PM
So what are our choices? We are in a hallway right now, I believe. So we can choose to explore the hallway or do we choose to go through another door and explore that room?
I'd think we'd want to explore this room.
I'd think we'd want to explore this room.
iphone3gs16gb
Mar 26, 11:00 PM
:mad: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4)
(Click the angry face for my thoughts on the release being in Fall.)
NEIN!!!
ICH MUSS HABEN MEIN IPHONE FUNF WIT IOS FUNF
I hope this rumor is false
(Click the angry face for my thoughts on the release being in Fall.)
NEIN!!!
ICH MUSS HABEN MEIN IPHONE FUNF WIT IOS FUNF
I hope this rumor is false
gorounds30
Mar 27, 03:57 PM
This is a stupid rumor. Every year they same the same thing. "iPhone coming in April, iPad in January." The release for iPad 2 specifically said iPad 2 is for the next year. Done. Apple does everything on a specific timeline, this is one thing that separates them from android. You know you're not going to buy the iPhone 4 when it is released only to have the iPhone "Thunderbolt" released a month later.
toddybody
Mar 31, 08:48 AM
Hey Devs, any info on TRIM support for Lion?
Tonsko
Jan 12, 09:49 AM
Talk to GGJStudios about point #3. He will rip your head off and call you unprofessional :D
milo
Aug 11, 02:58 PM
Remember, we're almost at 6 months with the Mac Mini, and it's seen neither a chip upgrade nor a speed bump.
So it's definitely due for one. You don't really think they'll go a year before it's upgraded, do you?
So it's definitely due for one. You don't really think they'll go a year before it's upgraded, do you?
munkery
Dec 28, 09:42 PM
Reason not to use AV software with real-time scanning with elevated privileges. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11570070&postcount=31)
ivladster
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
The fact that they are now suing Samsung, and waited this long, might give validity to this theory, as they did not want to sue them while Sammy was still a key supplier for them.
Something to think about.
Actually Apple just recently got granted those designs for iOS and iPhone 3GS, they were waiting for US Patent Office to approve them.
Something to think about.
Actually Apple just recently got granted those designs for iOS and iPhone 3GS, they were waiting for US Patent Office to approve them.
basesloaded190
Mar 28, 11:21 AM
The second update makes more sense.
I agree, but why would they say that in the first place. Not everyone knows Apple's accounting cycle :rolleyes:
I agree, but why would they say that in the first place. Not everyone knows Apple's accounting cycle :rolleyes:
Monty88
Mar 30, 11:10 PM
Is Lion available to iOS developers as well? Or is it solely for those with paid memberships to the "Mac Developer Program"?
heisetax
Aug 2, 03:26 PM
I think this is an oversight (we can call it oSight) by Apple. If you want to gain market share, especially for people who want high powered equipment. I worked in a small research for a while, like the above poster, there were NO cameras allowed including camera phones. This was a blanket policy for the whole facillity even if you had no security clearence. In this case it was required becasue they did a lot DoD research.
So, right off these new computers (iMac, MB, MBP) are not options for a facility like this to use. Additionally, anyone who works there and ever wants to bring his/her personal laptop to work is sunk too.
If was still working there I probably would have to opt for a differnt laptop.
Compared to other computer brands Macs give their customers fewer add-on options. I don't know why. I guess it makes it easier for them. But, in this case I think not making the built in iSight an option (even if it is free, like the glossy screen in the MBP) is a mistake.
Probably the main reason for few or no options is because of the 1" thick PowerBook model. That does not leave room to add anything. The next reason is just like air conditioning in new cars. The manufacture can sell it to everyone even if they don't want it. That increases profits. They use to have an external keyboard/mouse option which is also gone. So just look at the glossy screen as being different, not the norm for Apple.
Bill the TaxMan
So, right off these new computers (iMac, MB, MBP) are not options for a facility like this to use. Additionally, anyone who works there and ever wants to bring his/her personal laptop to work is sunk too.
If was still working there I probably would have to opt for a differnt laptop.
Compared to other computer brands Macs give their customers fewer add-on options. I don't know why. I guess it makes it easier for them. But, in this case I think not making the built in iSight an option (even if it is free, like the glossy screen in the MBP) is a mistake.
Probably the main reason for few or no options is because of the 1" thick PowerBook model. That does not leave room to add anything. The next reason is just like air conditioning in new cars. The manufacture can sell it to everyone even if they don't want it. That increases profits. They use to have an external keyboard/mouse option which is also gone. So just look at the glossy screen as being different, not the norm for Apple.
Bill the TaxMan
ghostee
May 4, 02:50 PM
I like the idea. Hopefully the App Store purchase will be versatile. I'd like to see:
- Buy on the App Store and perform a local upgrade
- Buy on the App Store and upgrade or fresh install another machine on the network
- Buy on the App Store and burn a disk to fresh install the local machine, or any other machine I want to
- Get a free copy of the above for a Mac purchased within X days of the Lion release.
The pricing also needs to be fair. The price should not be greater than what I could obtain the disk for, including any discounts retailers may provide.
- Buy on the App Store and perform a local upgrade
- Buy on the App Store and upgrade or fresh install another machine on the network
- Buy on the App Store and burn a disk to fresh install the local machine, or any other machine I want to
- Get a free copy of the above for a Mac purchased within X days of the Lion release.
The pricing also needs to be fair. The price should not be greater than what I could obtain the disk for, including any discounts retailers may provide.
japanime
Mar 29, 05:57 PM
Sounds very subjective when you give no cost of living comparisons.
The cost of living in Japan is very comparable to that of the United States. VERY. And I speak from experience, having lived both in rural and metro America as well as rural and metro Japan.
And you are the one who brought up "happy" employees. How do you objectively measure "happiness"?
The cost of living in Japan is very comparable to that of the United States. VERY. And I speak from experience, having lived both in rural and metro America as well as rural and metro Japan.
And you are the one who brought up "happy" employees. How do you objectively measure "happiness"?
Grakkle
Nov 26, 03:16 PM
i'm digging this idea! i love macs, home cinema and home automation! the one thing is i feel that the screen should be at least macbook size, although the 8" from previous rumours may be a tad small, although i think i'm already sold...
Yes, if the screen was some tiny affair it wouldn't be nearly as useful. I say at least 10" or so minimum.
Yes, if the screen was some tiny affair it wouldn't be nearly as useful. I say at least 10" or so minimum.
Stridder44
Aug 3, 10:34 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
The first Core 2 Duo (Merom) benchmarks (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/01/first_core-2_duo_benchmarks/) have already been making the rounds
The "tests" kind of sucked and wasn't that informative. Didn't tell us a whole lot...but either way I hope they get into the MBPs!!
The first Core 2 Duo (Merom) benchmarks (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/01/first_core-2_duo_benchmarks/) have already been making the rounds
The "tests" kind of sucked and wasn't that informative. Didn't tell us a whole lot...but either way I hope they get into the MBPs!!
LoganT
Mar 26, 10:28 PM
Stop focusing on the number 3 people.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 03:33 PM
Actually, my guess is that Apple/Jobs thinks the whole idea of banning cameras from PCs in the workplace is nonsense anyway. Being a bit of a trendsetter, Apple probably will go ahead and put them in all of their products so the majority who don't mind them will reap the benefits of no-hassle video teleconferencing and so forth.
Nowdays, it's so *easy* to build a digital camera into even the smallest, most discreet places, that it's pretty much uneforceable if you're going to dictate "no cameras" in a work environment of any sort. It's just like the places that no longer allow USB flash drives or iPods to be brought in, for fear someone will steal data and take it home. You can get a USB key built into a watch with retractable USB cable, or combo pens/USB flash drives. Do you think security guards at the door will really be on top of every possibility for those?
The *real* answer has always been to only hire employees you trust, and keep them happy and fairly paid for their work - so they don't have an interest in leaking out your company's secrets.
Well until the Department of Defense starts trusting its 3rd party contractors (the citizen of the United States) this will be the rule.
No security guards can't catch every camera, but if the employees are ethical and play by the rules they will not carry these for fear of going to federal prison (if one of the device accidentally snaps a picture).
Nowdays, it's so *easy* to build a digital camera into even the smallest, most discreet places, that it's pretty much uneforceable if you're going to dictate "no cameras" in a work environment of any sort. It's just like the places that no longer allow USB flash drives or iPods to be brought in, for fear someone will steal data and take it home. You can get a USB key built into a watch with retractable USB cable, or combo pens/USB flash drives. Do you think security guards at the door will really be on top of every possibility for those?
The *real* answer has always been to only hire employees you trust, and keep them happy and fairly paid for their work - so they don't have an interest in leaking out your company's secrets.
Well until the Department of Defense starts trusting its 3rd party contractors (the citizen of the United States) this will be the rule.
No security guards can't catch every camera, but if the employees are ethical and play by the rules they will not carry these for fear of going to federal prison (if one of the device accidentally snaps a picture).
ticman
Nov 5, 06:20 PM
Thanks to Tstreete and Jade for sharing information about the TomTom car kit and "other" places that it can be purchased at a discount. Also thanks for researching other vendors. Also, whoever posted info on the Arkon Friction Mount--also thanks as that may be a good option to avoid window mounting.
I am waiting for Tstreete to do his "acid" test and hopefully report back.
Couple of questions:
Assume you mounted on windshield. How was "view" while driving. Could you see the iphone and maps easily? Might a dashboard mount be better as it would be closer?
Also, how do you connect the mount to your radio system? Sorry if stupid question but haven't seen anything on it other than you need audio cable. Is it hardwired or a plugin somewhere near the radio. From reading the above posts it appears that spoken directions come thru radio speakers as would music BUT phone calls come through iphone/tomtom speakers. Correct?
If I have bluetooth via the steering wheel can that be incorporated with the car kit? not sure i would want to as it was a pain to use when i had it set up in the first place. I also had a BlueAnt bluetooth that I used with my BB Storm but it will not sync my contact list while using the iphone. Might I be able to use this feature? again might just be easier to use iphone voice dialing.
Thanks all for helpful information. I too agree that we each make our own decision on whether or not to by the tomtom dock. It depends on what we are trying to accomplish. Bashing the price point is really counterproductive as we each have the option to buy it or not. oops didn't mean to get on a soapbox here.
Thanks again,
Mike
I am waiting for Tstreete to do his "acid" test and hopefully report back.
Couple of questions:
Assume you mounted on windshield. How was "view" while driving. Could you see the iphone and maps easily? Might a dashboard mount be better as it would be closer?
Also, how do you connect the mount to your radio system? Sorry if stupid question but haven't seen anything on it other than you need audio cable. Is it hardwired or a plugin somewhere near the radio. From reading the above posts it appears that spoken directions come thru radio speakers as would music BUT phone calls come through iphone/tomtom speakers. Correct?
If I have bluetooth via the steering wheel can that be incorporated with the car kit? not sure i would want to as it was a pain to use when i had it set up in the first place. I also had a BlueAnt bluetooth that I used with my BB Storm but it will not sync my contact list while using the iphone. Might I be able to use this feature? again might just be easier to use iphone voice dialing.
Thanks all for helpful information. I too agree that we each make our own decision on whether or not to by the tomtom dock. It depends on what we are trying to accomplish. Bashing the price point is really counterproductive as we each have the option to buy it or not. oops didn't mean to get on a soapbox here.
Thanks again,
Mike
