text:
May 05, 2015 at 10:18
. Please
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Login with username, password and session length
Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Steelers Forums
2014 Big Board
Pages: [
Go Down
« previous
next »
Topic: 2014 Big Board (Read 8117 times)
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 12199
Posts: 22,547
2014 Big Board
Jan 10, 2014 at 16:04 »
OK, this is actually a first stab at the mini board: 15 guys I think we should consider, more concerned with talent and ability to fit our scheme than with need.
This is going to be changed radically, I'm sure. But right now...
1. OT Jake Matthews, Texas A&M. Looks like a sure thing. Stud LT. Beachum's played well, but this is an upgrade.
2. WR Sammy Watkins, Clemson. Best receiver in the draft, would give the passing game a seemingly unstoppable 1-2 punch.
3. OLB Anthony Barr, UCLA. Freakish athlete who would be a great addition as a pass-rusher. I'd be shocked if he fell to 15 or if we drafted an OLB, but he'd be too hard to pass up if he were there.
4. LB Khalil Mack, Buffalo. Another guy who's ostensibly an OLB and a nice fit here, but somehow I think he could play inside or out. Same caveats as Barr, above.
5. WR Mike Evans, Texas A&M. Maybe have him a little high, but huge upside, almost TE-sized frame, and like Watkins could make the passing game explosive.
6. TE Eric Ebron, NC. Similar to Evans, nice sized target, very productive, very athletic.
7. ILB CJ Mosley, Alabama. Not a thumper, but would be a natural leader and provide better speed and coverage. Good instincts.
8. DL Ra'Shede Hageman, Minnesota. Could play any spot on the DL, but would be best suited to end. Huge and athletic, would be a nice complement to Heyward.
9. OT Greg Robinson, Auburn. Showed nice athleticism and anchor in the title game, more polished and mobile than some of the other OTs. Good buzz about him.
10. CB Darqueze Denard. Good and bad about DD: plays physical. Want to see if he flips his hips and can turn and run, but could bring some nasty to the secondary.
11. CB Justin Gilbert, Oklahoma St. Gilbert and Denard are 1a and 1b. Gilbert has nice size, maybe not as physical as last year's CB Xav Rhodes, but looks ready to saddle up. Also valuable KR if needed.
12. DL Stephon Tuitt, Notre Dame. Similar frame and productivity to Hageman. Not sure he could handle the NT position, but like Hageman might be best suited at DE anyway.
13. OT Taylor Lewan, Michigan. I like Lewan; some don't. Plays with some nasty and could be a potential LT.
14. WR Marqise Lee, USC. Some injury concerns, but would be an explosive addition if he can stay healthy.
15. NT Louis Nix, Notre Dame. One of a very few true 3-4 NTs worth considering. Would bring a real plugger to the middle.
Didn't make it:
The QBs. IMO, overrated, none worth a look at 15, even Bridgewater.
Clowney - would fit the 3-4 like a stone in the shoe. Lazy?
The Bama LT Kouandjio - exposed. Second rounder at best.
Kelvin Benjamin - flashes potential, nice size, just misses; better options, above.
TEs Amaro and Sefarian-Jenkins - just missed. Would consider in a trade-down.
LB Beasley, Clemson - another guy who could play inside or out, just missed.
Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Old School Member
Karma: 5208
Posts: 1,671
Master of the figure-four leglock
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #1 on:
Jan 10, 2014 at 18:10 »
Good post. Agree about the QBs this year, although I'm hoping GMs are dumber than usual and 6 are taken before 1.15. I like some of the middle round guys, but I don't see what the big deal is about Bridgewater, Boyles, hate Manzel, think Boyd is a 3rd round project.
Love Watkins, obviously, although I think he may go as early as 1.4. Also agree with you on Lewan. Blood and guts guy. The way a Steeler offensive lineman should play. Could guard Ben's blindside until retirement.
Gotta love Denard's physicality but there's questions about him in man to man. Definitely not afraid to mix it up and tackle though. Would prefer Gilbert there.
I'm a big fan of Ebron and Amaro and would consider either at that spot.
Lennar Homes Consultant
Old School Member
Karma: 2858
Posts: 1,785
Mr Jack
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #2 on:
Jan 11, 2014 at 08:30 »
Mack, Barr, Evans and Lee would be on my wish list for the first round.
"He'll just smile and be cordial out there. Then he'll kill you."
--Aaron Smith, Defensive Lineman, on Troy Polamulu
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 12199
Posts: 22,547
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #3 on:
Jan 11, 2014 at 08:48 »
Bridgewater looks like he could be decent, but LOC? Nada. And he's sort of wispy.
I like Bortles, mentioned him earlier, but top 10? Fuck that. I was thinking maybe second round value.
Don't get the love of
Derek Carr.
Anyway... I don't think they're going QB this year, but I'd put some of the guys in this year's class in the mix later iffin I were GM.
Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 5541
Posts: 15,340
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #4 on:
Jan 11, 2014 at 09:57 »
I know it's early, but I'm not a fan of Gilbert.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 12199
Posts: 22,547
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #5 on:
Jan 13, 2014 at 10:39 »
Quote from: aj_law on Jan 11, 2014 at 09:57
I know it's early, but I'm not a fan of Gilbert.
I have to look at some more footage of him, but he has some traits. Worth it at 15? We'll see. Not a ton of CBs at the top this year.
Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 2770
Posts: 7,102
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #6 on:
Jan 13, 2014 at 13:01 »
Quote from: Finnegans Wake on Jan 13, 2014 at 10:39
Not a ton of CBs at the top this year.
That tells me that the carcass will probably be picked clean by 1.15.
OK Chris. Now that we have practiced kissing and cuddling, we'll practice eating out...at a fancy restaurant.
- Lois Griffin
Goal Line Blitz
- Football player and team simulator...Very Fun.
Fallen Sword
- MMORPG that is very fun. No ads and it's free.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 12199
Posts: 22,547
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #7 on:
Jan 24, 2014 at 09:37 »
Was just going to post about Robert Herron, WR, Wyoming and his splash at Senior Bowl practices.
He's a small guy, maybe 5'9" 190#, and I know we've talked about adding a big target for Ben. (Still could; how about TE?) But Herron's doing a very nice job of receiving, and could easily be as fast as Mike Wallace. Wallace ran a 4.28 40, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Herron do that too.
Then I saw
this article
I was chatting with Pittsburgh Steelers director of football operations Kevin Colbert, who calls the shots at one of the most storied brands in all of football, while watching the 1-on-1 drills and asked which of the receivers had grabbed the attention of this gridiron guru.
Oregon's Josh Huff, UCLA's Shaq Evans and Wisconsin's Jared Abbrederis all looked smooth in this particular session of drills, but it was the 5-foot-10, 187-pound Herron, a speedy player from a lesser-known school, by whom Colbert was most impressed.
If you blinked you would miss Herron's release off the line, as he repeatedly got great releases when confronted with press coverage. He showed tremendous speed as his routes progressed down the field, pulling away from defenders on more than one occasion.
In the world of analyzing talent, you'll often hear people say that someone "jumps off the screen." This kid was quick as a cat and jumps out at you in the three-dimensional realm, too.
If he's there at R3 when we have our comp pick, don't be surprised.
Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 5541
Posts: 15,340
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #8 on:
Apr 04, 2014 at 09:51 »
Was gonna start a separate thread for draft visits, but I changed my mind. Figured I'd just leave this here.
Tuitt and Dennard (yay!) visiting.
Others that have visited or are scheduled to visit (thanks to Steelers Depot):
*Shaquille Richardson (CB - Arizona)
*Lache Seastrunk (RB - Baylor)...?
*Anthony Barr (LB - UCLA)
*Jackson Jeffcoat (DE - Texas)
*Aaron Donald (DT - Pittsburgh)
*John Brown (WR - Pittsburgh State)
*Bradley Roby (CB - Ohio State)
*Ryan Shazier (LB - Ohio State)...goddamned Buckeyes always seem to work their way into Steeler drafts.
*Jason Verrett (CB - TCU)
*Seantrel Henderson (OT - Miami)
Feel free to add any that I missed or new additions.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
Karma: 12199
Posts: 22,547
Re: 2014 Big Board
Reply #9 on:
Apr 04, 2014 at 12:42 »
Another list from Steelers Depot. Includes scheduled visits.
CB Shaquille Richardson - Arizona - Scheduled
CB Darqueze Dennard - Michigan State - 4/2/14
RB Lache Seastrunk - Baylor - 4/1/14
LB Anthony Barr - UCLA - Scheduled
DE Jackson Jeffcoat - Texas - Scheduled
DT Aaron Donald - Pittsburgh - Happened
WR John Brown - Pitt State - 3/31/14
CB Bradley Roby - Ohio State - Scheduled
WR Donte Moncrief - Mississippi - 4/1/14
LB Ryan Shazier - Ohio State - Scheduled
DE Stephon Tuitt - Notre Dame - 4/2/14
CB Jason Verrett - TCU - 4/13/14
T Seantrel Henderson - Miami - Scheduled
S Brock Vereen - Minnesota - 4/4/14
WR Bruce Ellington - South Carolina - 4/4/14
Gotta figure they'll bring in all the Pitt and OSU guys since they're in the radius, plus anyone who went to HS in the radius IIRC. Very good list, IMO, although Seantrel Henderson, who I've penciled in on a couple of mocks now as a late round developmental guy, had the shittiest pro day workout of the year. Was either in such bad shape that he couldn't finish, or he just outright quit.
Shaq Richardson and Brock Vereen are legit late round developmental guys with mid-4.4 speed and good size.
Still don't think Aaron Donald fits our scheme, and looks like the Bears are slobbering over him anyway. Barr could drop; shows some insane upside, disappears; Bruce Davis flashbacks; hope he's gone before we pick.
Dennard, Moncrief, Shazier, Tuitt, Roby, Verrett are all in the R1-2 mix. Gut tells me that they may be locked on Moncrief at R2, just as they were with Bell R2 last year; also think a guy they may be changing from pencil to ink is OLB Shaq Robertson, with his connections to new coach Joey Porter - R5 seems right. Could use some depth, and I bet Porter talks up his boy until his voice is shot. Of the rest of this group, love to have them all. Dennard is probably the closest thing to being a legit 1.15, although I think Shaz could be; Verrett is probably a R1/2 cusp guy, maybe the best CB, but size and the labrum issue would make him a R2 for me. Tuitt has the size, and is young, but haven't seen any measurables, and he too could disappear for stretches. R2 with some asterisks. Most have him higher, which he could earn if I had some numbers. Roby has the speed, but lots of questions about his 2013 film. Looks like mental disconnect, so R2 grade, but R1 measurables, possibly some of the highest upside among the CB class.
Seastrunk, if he falls; poor man's LeVeon.
John Brown and Bruce Ellington: speedy little guys. We seem to be picking up more speed guys as FA this year, is it a trend? Have to think they're targeted as KR/PR.
Jeffcoat, has the bloodlines, not a fan, just doesn't seem to put it all together. Grade him lower than most would. R4-5 maybe.
Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Pages: [
Go Up
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
Steelers Forums
=> Steelers
=> Draft
=> Gameday
General Forums
=> Free Range Topics
=> Politics
=> Site Information & Comments
Sports Forums
=> Fantasy
=> Other Sports


text:
Folding electric assist bike begins final push for production
Article Summary
Hoping to re-ignite what he calls the "hidden magic" of commuting by bike, Washington-born designer Gabriel Wartofsky has been working on a folding e-bike project for the last two years, and is now entering the final stages of pre-production. Prototype number one of his first- and last-mile mobility solution has been taken for hundreds of test rides leading to rider-suggested modifications and design tweaks, crowd-sourced funding has been secured, and final stage manufacturing partners are now being brought on board ahead of an initial limited availability production run in Q1 2012.
« Back to Folding electric assist bike begins final push for production
Related Articles
- Features
- Reviews
- Aircraft
- Architecture
- Around The Home
- Automotive
- Bicycles
- Children
- Computers
- Digital Cameras
- Electronics
- Environment
- Games
- Good Thinking
- Health and Wellbeing
- Holiday Destinations
- Home Entertainment
- Inventors and Remarkable People
- Laptops
- Marine
- Medical
- Military
- Mobile Technology
- Motorcycles
- Music
- Outdoors
- Pets
- Robotics
- Science
- Space
- Sports
- Telecommunications
- Urban Transport
- Wearable Electronics

subset: commoncrawl


text:
My FRED
Other Formats
- s&p dow jones indices llc x 186
- minneapolis x 534
- hpi x 775
- mn x 2,315
- wi x 2,977
- price index x 3,121
- housing x 3,283
- msa x 37,478
- monthly x 80,478
- usa x 152,447
- nsa x 201,537
Related Categories
- Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
- MSAs
- Wisconsin
- Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
- MSAs
- Minnesota
- States
- U.S. Regional Data
- House Price Indices
- Prices
Need Help?
S&P/Case-Shiller MN-Minneapolis Home Price Index©
For more information regarding the index, please visit, http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----.
Copyright © 2014, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of Home Price Index for Minneapolis, Minnesota in any form is prohibited except with the prior written permission of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC "S&P". S&P does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, completeness or availability of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, regardless of the cause or for the results obtained from the use of such information. S&P DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. In no event shall S&P be liable for any direct, indirect, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including lost income or lost profit and opportunity costs) in connection with subscriber's or others' user of Home Price Index for Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Permission to reproduce this series can be requested from email@example.com. More contact details are available from http://us.spindices.com/contact-us/, including phone numbers for all of its regional offices.
Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC
Release: S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices
S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, S&P/Case-Shiller MN-Minneapolis Home Price Index© [MNXRNSA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MNXRNSA/, May 7, 2015.


text:
Emelia Bookcase
The streamlined, neoclassic design of our Emelia Collection finds its feminine grace with tapered legs, fluted sides and feet, and carved floral accents.
- Handcrafted of kiln-dried hardwood with fine veneers using tongue-and-groove joinery
- Finished by hand in warm aged white
- Features 1 English-dovetailed drawer with wood-on-wood glides
- 2 adjustable shelves, each designed to accommodate our shelf storage
- Includes glides on feet
- Oval hardware has an antique pewter finish
- This item is hand-crafted with meticulous care. Given its hand-finished nature and natural variations in the wood grain, each item is unique and no two will be exactly alike.
- Furniture Tip Restraint included
- Wood swatch is 6" square; free shipping
- GREENGUARD Gold Certified. Meets or exceeds stringent chemical emissions standards. Learn more.
Finish Options
Emelia Bookcase
- Overall: 36"W x 14½"D x 58"H
- Shelf: 32"W x 13"D x 1"H
- Drawer Interior: 29"W x 9½" x 5½"H
- Weight: 90 lbs.
Emelia Bookcase


text: Hand made by Tatte Bakery, a Boston-area artisanal bakery, this unique tart offers two ways to indulge the chocolate lover. Its rich, buttery crust is filled with creamy chocolate cream and topped with a velvety chocolate ganache, all made with the highest-quality Belgian chocolate. You add the finishing touch to the elegant dessert at home, drizzling on the included ganache just before serving so everything is as fresh as can be.


text:
Out of Stock
Item # SNZ0347
Don't worry though, we have a lot more All-Mountain & Trail Bikes - Full Suspension in stock than that.
Santa Cruz Bicycles Bronson Carbon R AM Complete Mountain Bike $0.00
Reviews & Community
What do you think of the
Santa Cruz Bicycles Bronson Carbon R AM Complete Mountain Bike
? Share a...
Joey W
Sunset riding in Park City
im 5'4, and ive never sat on a 27.5 before....
im 5'4, and ive never sat on a 27.5 before. I've only ridden on 26" bikes. my biggest concern is the stand over height, which I will measure tonight. i believe i have a longer torso and shorter legs with trex arms... :( makes deadlifting tough.
Dream frame to build on
- Familiarity: I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions
Only ridden a few times, all I can say is what a bike.
The R AM build was at a price I couldn't refuse with scope for me to upgrade with component spec of my choice.
I live in the UK and was lucky enough to be working in the USA when the Bronson went on sale.
The price was less than half you would expect to pay in the UK :-) . But European customers should remember that in America you put the brakes on the other hand.
I'm 5'7" and the MED. Frame is perfect for me.
Great job Competitive Cyclist.
Than Volk
Santa Cruz Bronson
will size med come back into stock?
will size med come back into stock?
Jon J
Unfortunately we won't be receiving any more of the 2014 bikes. The new 2015 models will be live on the site in the coming weeks.
Joey W
Its purdy
Lexi Dowdall
She is indeed, very purdy.
Joey W
27.5: All the cool kids are doing it
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
I made the upgrade this year from a 26" Ibis HD, that I really enjoyed, to the 27.5 bronson which I am even happier with! I most definitely have noticed better rolling uphill on the climb but do not feel that the agility on the decent has been compromised. The CTD switch on the rear shock and fork is AMAZING. I have a hardtail when i lock it down, a trail rider when I'm on "T" , and almost a full on downhill bike when I drop it into descend. The one part that I wasnt stoked on were the brakes. These were not my favorite; not nearly as responsive and quick as some of the other brakes ive used. The tubeless rims are awesome and have been happy with the tires as well! Tennis ball yellow is definitely the way to go in terms of color. Way cooler than the halloween scheme on the black version. Get this bike if you are looking for a do-anything, all-mountain ripper and you will not be disappointed!
Than Volk
Someday we'll teach you to capitalize all if your "I"s
glass house Than
Jason Welchert
Can I order this bike with a 1x10 build?...
Can I order this bike with a 1x10 build?
Marc DiVall
The Bronson R AM comes to us as a build from Sant Cruz, so the customization is limited. However, we we have the custom build option from the frame (Item # SNZ0350) up. There are nearly endless ways to customize the Bronson. We can do a SRAM 1x11, Shimano 1/2/3x10, choice of wheels/tires, etc.
Send me an email (firstname.lastname@example.com) and I'd be more than happy to talk over build options with you.
My new Bronson
- Familiarity: I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions
I am impressed not only with the bike but with backcountry.com. I had been looking for a carbon 27.5 for a while and finally decided to got with the Bronson/ Large. I received the bike within a few days and have already taking it for a spin. Love the travel of the 27.5. The bike looks amazing and feels great. So far I only have one con with this bike and it is with the seat post not being able to go all the way down. This is a concern because I am trying to figure out the best dropper post that will work for my height 6', and also being able to drop it low when I hit big drops .
I have to assume you're in N. C. based in the wall. Where do you ride and how have you liked the 27.5 wheels for Carolina?
Thanks for your time.
Craig Armstrong
Santa Cruz Bronson Video
A video made about the Bronson by SC.
dave yakovich
Can I order this bike with enve / chris...
Can I order this bike with enve / chris king wheel set and what would the cost be ?
give us a call and we can set that order up for you. 1.888.276.7130 thanks!


text:
Overview of content related to 'creative commons'
This page provides an overview of 1 article related to 'web 2.0'. Note that filters may be applied to display a sub-set of articles in this category (see FAQs on filtering for usage tips). Select this link to remove all filters.
The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies. The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in late 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. (Excerpt from Wikipedia article: Web 2.0)
Key statisticsMetadata related to 'web 2.0' (as derived from all content tagged with this term):
See our 'web 2.0' overview for more data and comparisons with other tags. For visualisations of metadata related to timelines, bands of recency, top authors, and and overall distribution of authors using this term, see our 'web 2.0' usage charts. |
Top authorsAriadne contributors most frequently referring to 'web 2.0':
Note: Links to all articles by authors listed above set filters to display articles by each author in the overview below. Select this link to remove all filters. |
Title | Article summary | Date |
Share. Collaborate. Innovate. Building an Organisational Approach to Web 2.0 |
Paul Bevan outlines the National Library of Wales' development of a strategic approach to meeting user needs in a post-Web 2.0 world. |
October 2009, issue61, feature article |


text:
Moderators: MelissaB, kgudger, Ray Trent, Moderators
donnahardy2 wrote:The best way to do a quantitative assay is to take a specific volume of the total sample and measure the protein so you can calculate the ug or mg of protein per gram of strawberry. This would also allow you to compare results of all of the samples.
Return to Grades 9-12: Life, Earth, and Social Sciences
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
Researching Attorney Discipline
Sidney, Nebraska Elder Lawyers
James E. Riha
Private practice attorney since 1980
Omaha, NE Elder Law Attorney.
(402) 341-0700
Rutgers University - Camden
Bradley Arne Boyum
Omaha, NE Elder Law Attorney.
(402) 991-5410
Creighton University School of Law - Creighton University
David W. Rowe
Kinsey Rowe Becker & Kistler, LLP
Lincoln, NE Elder Law Attorney.
(402) 434-9050
University of Michigan Law School - University of Michigan
David Sommers
Sommers Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O.
Omaha, NE Elder Law Attorney.
(402) 504-9394
University of New Mexico
Thomas T Inkelaar
Lincoln, NE Elder Law Attorney.
(877) 487-8711
Washburn University School of Law - Washburn University
The LII Lawyer Directory contains lawyers who have claimed their profiles and are actively seeking clients. Find more Sidney, Nebraska Elder Law Lawyers in the Justia Legal Services and Lawyers Directory which includes profiles of more than one million lawyers licensed to practice in the United States, in addition to profiles of legal aid, pro bono and legal service organizations.


text:
- Announcements
- enewscast
- Library
- Sciops
- Gemini Home
- Telescopes and Sites
- Science Visitors at Gemini
- Observing With Gemini
- Instruments
- Future Instrumentation & Current Development
- Queue and Schedules
- Data and Results
- Helpdesk
- Statistics
- Viaje
Change page style:
Release Notes
Version 2015A.1.1.2 was released on February 11, 2015 with the following updates:
- Fix target name resolver
- Fix error for missing ODGW star
- Fix "User" target number mismatch
- Fix missing guide star error for Visitor observations
Version 2015A.1.1.1 was released on December 10, 2014 with the following updates:
- Template Reapply must not overwrite Custom Mask MDF names
- Fix nonsidereal Solar System Object Horizons name resolution
- GNIRS minimum exposure time phase-2 check must apply to all observation classes
- Add phase-2 check for GMOS IFU spatial binning
- Support e-offsetting in GMOS templates
- Add guide star magnitude phase-2 checks
- Give warnings when slower guiding will be required
- Re-upload of auxiliary files must reset NGO check flag
- Add "Remote" selection option to Open dialog and Browser
- Save Position Editor preferences
- Open dialog should only show programs editable with the active key
- Update to Java 7
- Add a phase-2 check for P-offsets in slit spectroscopy
- Reinstate GPI UNBLOCKED modes
- Update F2 exposure time phase-2 check to work with all classes
- Updates for fast-turnaround programs
- Add average parallactic angle support for GNIRS
- Add average parallactic angle support for F2
- Allow copy & paste of template groups
- Fix GMOS-N Nod & Shuffle phase-2 check
- Fix missing GNIRS minimum exposure time
- Update the OT program name on Windows and MacOS
- Add support for new GMOS-N R150 grating
- Add support for Korea
- Update GMOS-S Hamamatsu readout overheads
- Change the MASCOT AGS default to Strasbourg
- Change OT color scheme to improve readability
- Update GPI Templates for 2015A
- Update GMOS Templates for 2015A
Version 2014B.1.1.2 was released on June 16, 2014 with the following updates:
- Fix template reapplication
- Fix regeneration of MOS + pre-imaging templates
- Fix GMOS exposure time validity check
Version 2014B.1.1.1 was released on June 4, 2014 with the following updates:
- Add support for observing at the average parallactic angle
- Add "Sync All" feature to the "File" menu and "Confirm Close" dialog
- Add support for "Large" programs (LP)
- Make the "Open Program" dialog columns sortable
- Give every observation an "Observing Log" component to facilitate log auto-updates
- Include a "DHS Write" overhead for all instruments
- Replace pre-2012B Phase-I node with PDF proposal attachments
- GMOS-S observations now default to the Hamamatsu CCDs
- Add new Z and Y filters to GMOS-S
- Check that MOS mask names are defined and have the correct format
- Update GMOS custom ROI readout overheads
- Transform GMOS nod & shuffle offsets between CCD manufacturers
- Check for invalid fractional or zero-length GMOS exposure times
- Default the Altair beamsplitter (and reset all old observations) to 850nm
- Check that all Altair guided offsets are reachable
- Check that offsets with LGS are all less than 5 arcminutes
- Fix Linux and Windows keyboard shortcuts for reordering observations
- Fix bug when editing the exposure time in FLAMINGOS-2 Sequence iterators
- Fix the broken Partner search in the OT Browser
Version 2014A.1.2.10 was released on March 5, 2014 with the following updates:
- Performance improvements, especially with large programs and using multiple science program editors
- Fixes a bug with saving OT browser queries
An update to the 2014A OT (2014A.1.2.5) was released on January 27, 2014. Changes from the previous version include:
- Fix several memory leaks, this improves performance and reliability when working with large program.
The 2014A OT (2014A.1.2.1) was released on December 9, 2013. This is a major update with many significant changes, including:
- The use of passwords to access programs has been simplified by the use of authentication keys. These are requested once per OT and then they are saved until reset or the OT is upgraded. Old program passwords are still valid. There is a new type of user key based on email addresses that gives access to all programs that include a given address.
- Fetch/Store has been replaced with a more robust sync mechanism. The old fetch/store and open program dialogs have been merged. Any conflicts resulting from simultaneous edits of program nodes can be resolved manually, recent work should not longer disappear if there is an edit conflict.
- Program navigation has been changed and improved. Prev and Next buttons move to the previous and next programs in the list of programs loaded into the current Science Program editor. The Back and Forward buttons follow the navigation history of the visible program.
- The Observation Status (Phase 2, For Review, etc) has been split into a Phase 2 Status (Phase 2 to Prepared, and Inactive) and Exec Status (Ready to Observed).
- The GN and GS report servers have been split. Therefore, the links to the queue, director's time, and poor-weather summary pages have been split.
- Inactive observations are no longer included in the calculations of the planned time.
- The GMOS-S guide star limiting magnitudes have been updated to reflect the measured performance. The limits are about 1 magnitude brighter than previously.
- The prediction of the Strehl value for Canopus guide star configurations have been updated based on measured performance.
- Canopus Strehl results now include the expectded FWHM based on measured performance for the conditions selected.
- The default Canopus beamsplitter is now 0.85 um.
- Template observations have been updated for GMOS-N/S, FLAMINGOS-2, GSAOI, and GNIRS.
An update to the 2013B OT (2013B.1.2.2) was released on September 13, 2013. Changes from the previous version include:
- The FLAMINGOS-2 longslit acquisition overhead has been reduced to 20 minutes.
- Internal changes so that the queue band can be put in the image headers.
The 2013B OT (2013B.1.1.1) was released on June 5, 2013. Changes from the previous version include:
- Add support for visitor instruments
- Update OT splash screen for 2013B
- Change phase-2 check warning for unapproved targets to an error
- Add Flamingos 2 to the SmartGCAL system
- Implement Template libraries and mapping for Flamingos 2
- Add new Flamingos 2 Lyot wheel positions
- Change "Notify PI" checkbox to default to TRUE
- Update GNIRS Templates
- Add Hamamatsu CCD option to GMOS-S
- Fix OT bug to save dirty programs in OSX when clicking CMD+Q
- Handle JDK 1.6 update 045 which breaks RMI
- Update TEXES component
- Add GPI "Extended Source" Parameter
- Add GPI Static "Observing Modes" Parameter
- Add "Lyot" Parameter to GPI Engineering component
- Add GPI warning if target magnitude is I < 0
- Add GPI maximum integration time check
- Add GPI warning if Filter, Apodizer, FPM or Lyot are overridden
- Add GPI check for half wave plate angle iterator + Wollaston
An update to the 2013A OT (2013A.2.1.1) was released on March 6, 2013. Changes from the previous version include:
- The ability to open PDF and finding chart attachments directly from the OT.
- Canopus CWFS patrol field updates.
- GSAOI overhead updates.
- Added the Lya395_G0342 filter to GMOS-S.
- Fixed a bug in the non-sidereal calendar GUI that especially affected Australian timezones.
- Explicitly set the XML character encoding in order to preserve Unicode characters.
The 2013A OT (2013A.1.1.1) was released on December 6, 2012. Changes from the previous version include:
- On hold ToO observations change to phase 2 when copied to another ToO program
- Add semester menu and program type check-boxes to OT Fetch dialog for NGOs and staff
- Fix NIRI J continuum 1.22um filter in OT skeletons
- Prevent erasure of file attachments by store of other users
- Separate SmartGCAL tables for test and release versions
- Fix the OT 'Help' launcher in Ubuntu Linux
- Update blueprint mapping/libraries for 2013A
- Prevent deletion of template groups which have targets
- Fix highlighting the active program in the Fetch/Store program list
- Display the effective NIFS OIWFS field of view corrected for offsets
- Add PA +/- 180 deg option to the F2 component
- Prevent deletion of all OT Observing Logs
- Apply GPI intensity parameter to IR/Visible and WhiteLight and update name
- Allow multiple GPI artificial calibrations sources on at the same time
- Update the 2013A OT splash screen
- Fix internal ODB program ID parser bugs when loading from XML
An update to the 2012B OT (2012B.3.1.1) was released on August 31, 2012. Changes from the previous version include:
- User catalogs may now be used for GeMS/GSAOI guide star asterism selections
- Limiting magnitudes for manual guide star searches are adjusted for the conditions constraints just as for the automatic guide star selections
- Template observations for GeMS/GSAOI can be created from 2013A proposal files.
- The GNIRS H filter can be used for red camera acquisitions
- Improved Phase 2 checks
- Horizons non-sidereal name lookups are done every time that the coordinates are updated in order to ensure that the latest orbital elements are used
- Added Gemini North and South DSS image server
- Gemini staff may set an override on Phase 2 check warnings
- Fixed a bug that prevented groups from being deleted
- Fixed a bug that prevented automatically generated GCAL settings from displaying if the computer language was not English
- Fixed bugs in the template observations logic and libraries. Current templates or observations are not changed but regenerated templates will be correct.
The 2012B OT was released on June 18, 2012. Changes from the previous version include:
- Inclusion of new observation templates
- Templates are filled in with the instrument resources selected in the Phase I proposal
- Targets and conditions associated with a group of templates are viewed by clicking on the template group name
- Acquisition and baseline calibration observation examples are included
- Templates are 'Applied' to targets and conditions to create draft observations for execution
- Template "groups" can be split so that different templates can be applied to different targets
- Changes to templates can be "Reapplied" to existing observations as a way to easily make changes to many observations at once
- Templates can be regenerated from the template server to get the latest templates or start from scratch
- Automatic guide star selection for all instruments and wavefront sensors
- "Auto GS" buttons will select a guide star for the default wavefront sensor
- It is possible to select an alternative wavefront sensor using menus in the target component or Position Editor
- Magnitude limits for the selection depend on the conditions constraints
- Simplified guiding state options in offset iterators. Control of individual wavefront sensors is still available via the Advanced Guiding Options tab.
- Support for the new LGS+PWFS1 mode in the Altair component
- Custom ROI support for GMOS-N and GMOS-S
- Added GNIRS YJK imaging filters to the GNIRS sequence iterator
- Target brightness information stored as value:bandpass:system where sytem is Vega mag, AB mag, or Jy
- Reduced memory usage and more rapid program launch
- Updated Phase 2 checks
- Relabel conditions bins to match the 2012B PIT
- Fixed GNIRS OT visualization with Altair
- Updated GNIRS acquisition times
A second update to the 2012A OT (2012A.1.2.1) was released on February 15, 2012. Changes from the previous version include:
- Fix Smart Calibration updates
- Combine internal/external Fetch/Store options
- Update the Canopus bottom-port orientation
- Update the F2 OIWFS patrol field
- Change GSAOI base position from detector 3 to detector 4
- Update the CWFS patrol field limits
- Add Fetch & Store password persistence
- Fix F2 OIWFS arm orientation when zooming
- Set the GeMS ADC default to 'Off'
- Fix storing of Browser queries
- Add the option to download 2MASS images in any band
- Display the image source and band in the Position Editor
- Show airmass and hour-angle constraints on the elevation plot
- Add a phase-2 check for GMOS-N 3-amp mode
- Scale Mascot Strehl results
An update to the 2012A OT (2012A.1.1.2) was release on December 15, 2011. Changes from the previous version are:
- Flats now taken before arcs in the Nighttime/Daytime Baseline GCAL observe components to help minimize persistence in the GNIRS detector
- Windows OT now correctly updates the automatic GCAL calibration tables (bug fix)
- The settings for observed steps display correctly (fixed a bug that affected some sequences)
- Datasets with the same configuration are combined into a single obslog entry (bug fix)
- T-ReCS planned times are correct when an engineering component is included (bug fix)
The 2012A OT was released on December 1, 2011. A presentation describing the major changes in the 2012A OT is available, and the most significant changes are listed here:
- Automatic GCAL settings for GMOS, GNIRS, NIFS, and NIRI
- Add GMOS custom mask slit width menu in the GMOS component
- Automated Guide Star selection support for GMOS sidereal targets
- Add MASCOT guide star algorithm for GeMS
- Automatic read mode setting for GCal observations (GNIRS, NIFS and NIRI)
- Add option to rotate GMOS by +/- 180 degrees for guide star selection
- Revise observation time-line view and calculations
- Add mouse-over information to time-line elements
- Added GPI component (beta)
- Add phase-2 check for the maximum GMOS exposure time due to cosmic rays
- Add phase-2 check for the maximum GMOS imaging exposure times due to the background
- Add phase-2 check for GMOS slow-read and high-gain
- Prevent GNIRS empty central wavelengths
- Change image cache lookup mechanism to accommodate 2MASS
- Fix a bug affecting the GMOS gain in multiple sequences
- Fix email notifications for SV programs
- Add the required observing constraint parameters to FITS headers
- Fix the non-sidereal "Now" item at month boundaries
- Increase the size of the non-sidereal calendar
- Update GNIRS detector information
- Fix the icon for targets of executed observations
- Remove older and less-unreliable guide star catalogs
- Remove Digitized Sky at CADC image server
- Remove GMOS-N phase-2 check warning for 6 amp mode
- Remove GMOS Nod & Shuffle overheads from flats and arcs
A mid-semester optional update of the 2011B OT was released on October 5, 2011 with the following changes:
- Increase the ODB auxiliary file size limits to 250MB/file and 2GB total
- Incorporate the PPXML Guide Star Catalog
- Add GSAOI ROI Support
- Add a phase-2 check for the NIRI beam splitter
- Add a phase-2 check for NIRI f/6 + Altair
- Add GeMS guide star configuration checks
- Display the Canopis WFS probes in the Position Editor
- Update the GSAOI base position
- Update the GSAOI overheads
- Fix a bug in the Flamingos-2 Position Editor display
- Fix a bug which prevented dragging guide stars with TReCS and Michelle
The 2011B OT was released on June 2, 2011, and the most significant changes were:
- Introduce CC80 and obsolete CC90
- Update GSAOI overheads based on commissioning data
- Fix calculation of GMOS OIWFS patrol field for IFU
- Label GMOS CCDs in Position Editor
- Modify phase 2 checks to allow GN LGS + PWFS1
- Update Libraries button mouse over text
- Add Flamingos 2 filters F1056/F1063
- Use true GMOS-S pixel scale
- Change NICI filter names
- Fix side-port config of GSAOI detector and Canopus probe arm
The 2011A OT was released on December 2, 2010, and the most significant changes were:
- Check that the band-3 minimum time is not zero
- Add support for new NICI components
- Add phase 2 check when the GMOS OIWFS guide star is not reachable
- Improve the visualization of GMOS OIWFS offsets
- FoV reachable by all offset positions marked in green
- Unreachable offsets marked in red - Fix NIFS minimum exposure time error
- Update GNIRS image readout overheads
- Fix several OT orbital element bugs
- Fix observing wavelength in nested iterators
- Remove Hipparcos coordinate system
- Add support for GNIRS ND filter
- Fix GMOS N&S binning bug
- Include GNIRS Read Mode in iterator
- Make GNIRS Camera an engineering component
- Fix non-sidereal target 'Now' button
- Fix GNIRS FOV visualization for all XD combinations
- Make GMOS-N amp count an engineering-only property
- GSAOI updates
- Configurable GSAOI orientation
- Component updates
- Update default values for ADC, dichroic and astrometric mode
- ODGW guide options
The 2010B OT was released on June 9, 2010, and the most significant changes were:
- Modified instrument components and iterators
- GMOS-N instrument component has the option to select either E2V (current) or Hamamatsu (planned upgrade) detectors
- GMOS gain/read mode selection has been combined in the static components
- Updates to the GMOS translation stage and ROI tabs
- Add new Y and Z filters to the GMOS-N filter list
- User interaction and interface features
- Magnitudes for targets are now entered as value:bandpass pairs instead of in a simple text box. Magnitudes for guide stars are parsed from guide star queries where possible.
- Added UCAC3 guide star catalog query
- Updates to the OT library function
- Bug fixes
- Browser queries saved correctly
- Improve the calculation of GMOS nod & shuffle detector offset based on the CCD Y binning
The 2010A OT was released on December 4, 2009 and the most significant changes were:
- Modified instrument components and iterators
- Michelle componet - correct behavior of the static component and Position Editor visualization for medN and echelle modes
- GMOS component - added a Phase 2 check to ensure that imaging observations are binned 1x1, 2x2, or 4x4; pre-imaging should be 1x1 or 2x2
- Updated telescope offsetting overheads for all instruments
- Updated overhead calculations for NIFS, Phoenix, and NICI
- Flamingos-2 component updated to support ongoing commissioning
- GSAOI and Canopus guide probe visualization added to the Position Editor in preparation for commissioning
- User interaction and interface features
- It is now possible to deactivate all guide stars for a given probe from both the target component and the Position Editor.
- Guide probe states for different offset positions are remembered when all stars for a probe are deactivated and are returned to the previous states when re-activated. Note that the states are lost if all the guide stars are deleted from the target component.
- Bug fixes
- Fix setting of Michelle observing wavelengths in offset iterators
- Remove restriction on the number of entries displayed in the timing window table
On 24 August 2009 and updated version of the 2009B OT (2.1.1) was released. The database is not compatible with version 1.1.3 so the update is required. Also, this version must be installed from distribution files. Changes from the previous version are:
- Changes and new features
- Added new controls for Michelle engineering
- Updated Flamingos-2 observing wavelengths
- Bugs fixed
- Michelle central spectroscopic wavelengths will not unexpectedly revert to the default values.
- If all OIWFS guide stars are removed from the target component of a GMOS nod & shuffle observation then the OIWFS state is set to "park" in both nod positions in the nod&shuffle tab. These will remain at "park" even after a new guide star is added, you must go to the tab to set them to "guide" or "freeze". This is necessary now to avoid a problem in which the program will not export and may get lost from the database. This behavior will be improved in future releases. Note that the export bug can appear during the update process. If it occurs there is a way to recover as long as you don't delete anything in the directory ~/.jsky/spdb. If you have a problem with a program then please submit a HelpDesk ticket and we will assist you.
On 17 August 2009 and updated version of the 2009B OT (1.1.3) was released. The database is compatible with version 1.1.2 so the update is optional, but recommended. Changes from the previous version are:
- Changes and new features
- Observations using "obsolete" instrument componets (e.g. filters, gratings, etc that are no longer used) can now be searched for in the OT browser. By default these components are included in the component lists and they are indicated with an '*'. If the user does not want these components to be visible, then the option can be deselected using the Preferences option in the browser's File menu
- Overheads for NIRI filter changes have been updated
- Standard TOO triggers will no longer be given a timing window by default (it had been one week). If a timing window is desired then it can be added explicitly to the triggering observation.
- For targets not defined in the Phase I information, the observing conditions selected in the conditions component will be compared with the default conditions in the Phase I information.
- Bugs fixed
- Null pointer exception when working with observations without a sequence component.
- The contents of an original note changes whenever one copy is edited. The copied notes are now independent again.
The first 2009B version of the Observing Tool was publicly released on 12 June 2009. The most significant changes from the previous public release (2009B) are summarized below:
- Modified instrument components and iterators
- GMOS components
- The damaged B600_5303 grating in GMOS-N has been replaced with B600_5307
- Narrow band filters [SII], [OIII], [OIII]c, HeII and HeIIc have been added to the GMOS-N filter list
- Narrow band filters HeII and HeIIc have been added to the GMOS-S filter list
- NICI component - NDR selection removed and ISS port option added
- Flamingos 2 component updated to support commissioning in 09B
- GSAOI - basic component added in anticipation of commissioning
- GMOS components
- User interaction and user interface features
- New target component features:
- Available guide star types are context sensitive
- Guide stars that are to be used and viewed in the Position Editor are selected in the target component rather than in the offset iterators
- Guide star types for GSAOI and Canopus have been added
- The offset iterator was modified to reflect the changes in the target component
- New target component features:


text:
Those mockup screenshots look silly. People need to stop complaining. It's a phone, not a tablet. Keep it that way.
More on a 5-inch iPhone and scaling the interface
Just over a week ago I ran the numbers on a bigger screen iPhone, and presented several ways Apple could go, including just taking the current screen and stretching it out to almost 5-inches, which would give it the same 264ppi pixel density as the Retina iPad 4 screen. Since Apple used the iPhone density to make the iPad mini, using the iPad density to make the iPhone maxi has a certain symmetry to it.
But would stretching out the icons, buttons, text and other interface elements just make them look bigger, or would it make them look silly? Let's find out...
John Gruber of Daring Fireball said:
From an operations standpoint, they'd be re-using a component they're already familiar with. From a software standpoint, existing apps would just run, and everything would just look bigger on screen.
Marco Arment of Marco.org said:
By keeping the pixel dimensions the same as the iPhone 5, no app changes would be necessary. While the larger screen would hinder one-handed use, two-handed use would actually be easier because the touch targets would all be larger, and UIKit's standard metrics and controls still work well at that physical size.
Here, again, is what it could look like relative to the original iPhone, iPhone 4, and iPhone 5.
And relative to other, larger screened phones on the market, including the Samsung Galaxy S3, the iPhone 5, the Nokia Lumia 920, the BlackBerry Dev Alpha, and the Samsung Galaxy Note 2.
Still, the most consistent question I'm getting -- other than why or if Apple would do it, which I've speculated about twice already -- is how would the interface work. Going from 4-inches to close to 5-inches increases everything, every icon, button, ever bit of text, every pixel, by 20%. For people with accessibility issues, for whom buttons and text are too small on every iPhone released to date, that could be really welcome news. For others, it sounds overly, perhaps comically large.
This is exactly inverse the debate that preceded the launch of the iPad mini, where some feared the interface element size would be too small for comfortable use.
So what's the reality?
Let's fake a change in screen density and take a look. Note, the images below are scaled up to simulate 264ppi, then cropped to fit on the iPhone 5/iPod touch 5 screens and cleaned up a little. That means some icons, texts, and other stuff gets "lost" to make it all fit. None of that would happen on a 5-inch screen. The images below are only meant to show the size of buttons, text, etc., not completeness.
Just tap on these and view them full size on your iPhone (and tap and hold to save to Camera Roll if you want to experience them without the Safari chrome around them).
Here's the same thing for an iPad mini, without cropping, but with padding to fill the different pixel size and aspect ratio. Again, view them full screen.
For a full sized iPad, Marco made an Instapaper mockup you can try.
If you think of the iPad mini as a tablet that's using phone density, then the big iPhone is just a phone using tablet density. You have phone interface at high density, phone interface at less-high density, tablet interface at high density, tablet interface at less-high density.
Then, just like there's an 11- and 13-inch MacBook Air, and a 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro, there's a 4- and 5-inch iPhone, and a 7.9 and 9.7-inch iPad.
Almost 9 out of 10 AT&T customers bought 4-inch or smaller iPhones last quarter rather than all big screen Android and Windows Phones combined, and roughly 6 out of 10 Verizon customers did the same. So aside from geeks who keep posting about how they really want it, and shoppers for whom bigger as a feature is always better, Apple might not feel any pressing, mainstream need to add another screen size to the iPhone product line. Yet.
But if and when they do, stretching the screen offers less complexity, and less impact on both iOS and developers. That's how you expand a product without expanding panel production or developer support headaches. It's an Apple-like solution.
iPhone 6
Presumed name for the next-generation 2014 flagship iPhone. Rumored features include:
Fall, 2014
iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 4s
iPhone 6s
Fall, 2015
Buyers guide
Rumors forum
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
More on a 5-inch iPhone and scaling the interface
The iPhone is appropriately sized. 5"+ is ridiculous. My friends make fun of people with Notes.
I just got paid $6784 working on my laptop using these simple steps leaked on this web page. Make up to $85 per hour doing simple tasks that are so easy to do that you won't forgive yourself if you don't check it out! Weekly payments! Here is what I've been doing http://Rich45.com
I just cant see apple keeping it the same and dropping so much in the PPI. I mean after all they were the ones to coin retina display and keeping the same resolution at an inch larger display would make the pixels be noticable for many. Not to mention people are choosing the 4" iphone because if they want an IOS device that is the only choice they have for a "large screen" I bet if apple released a larger iphone that wasn't just stretched out they would sell even more than the iphone 5 and sway even more users to IOS.
I think a larger screen makes sense and I'd certainly consider it (considered another platform for that reason before purchasing my iPhone 5). I'd prefer closer to 4.5", but more important is maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem and avoiding Android style fragmentation so I'd live with 5" if the form factor was right (i.e. not just a bigger iPhone 5).
I seem to be the only one left who is content with my 4" iPhone. I find going larger doesn't really bring much to the table other than being larger, and I appreciate the overall size of the 5.
I think going larger screen carries very little inovation. 5" can be an option if there is some redesign of iOS that would make 5" very usable, could be a new type of keyboard or input feature. But with the current crop of iOS, I actually find the iPhone 5 almost too big. It's at time very difficult to reach the top left part of the screen with your thumb and I don't have small hands at all. Let the other companies try and out "grow" each other and call that "news". Apple should stick with usability and keep the current design, were a phone can be operated with one hand.
"Almost 9 out of 10 AT&T customers bought 4-inch or smaller iPhones last quarter rather than all big screen Android and Windows Phones combined, and roughly 6 out of 10 Verizon customers did the same. "
*sigh* Rene, you really need to stop trotting out incorrect data in an otherwise great article (it's like putting Windows on a Mac or ketchup on a hot dog). I'm not sure if it's ignorance or an agenda, but please stop it.
Maybe I drink from the same kool aid fountain as Rene, but what about his statement is incorrect? Those are the numbers reported by both Verizon and AT&T. And keep in mind, at least on Verizon (I don't recall the AT&T breakdown) just over half were iPhone 5, meaning nearly half we the 4/4S at 3.5"
it's because Rene counts activations and sales as one and the same. Consider this scenario;
The AT&T store sells 10 iPhones.
The Apple store sells 10 iPhones.
Best Buy sells 10 iPhones.
How many iPhones did AT&T sell? How many iPhones did AT&T activate? See the difference?
For Rene to be correct, he is stating that retail chains like Apple sell no iPhones.
Ok, fair enough. I see what you are saying. The thing is, from every article any site discussing their Q4-2012 numbers, all say the same thing. I, personally, take total sales of 10.2 million smartphones to be all sales through all carrier partners (Apple, best buy, etc) because those partners are selling AT&T inventory/product. What I guess it isn't counting is resales. Activations could be, but we don't know for 100%.
So you may be right, but I think the impact is not as great as you state.
However, he is correct about Verizon numbers. ACTIVATED 9.8 million smartphones. ACTIVATED 6.2 million iPhones, half of which we the larger iPhone 5.
So I will still give Rene the benefit of the doubt.
"I, personally, take total sales of 10.2 million smartphones to be all sales through all carrier partners (Apple, best buy, etc) because those partners are selling AT&T inventory/product" . The only AT&T product in an iPhone is the SIM. Think about this; If what you are saying is correct, then Apple sells the majority of the iPhone outside the US. Jobs/Cook personally have refuted that statement over the years.
There is no possible way AT&T knows about about every iPhone sale in the US If I go to a street vendor and buy an iPhone, how does AT&T know about it? The primary retort I see to this is that AT&T must activate a lot of used phones and that is why they report two sets of data, but that seems like a pretty big stretch.
You are correct on the Verizon part, and my apologies to Rene for saying he was wrong on that. It is interesting to see how AT&T and Verizon differ in what they report (Verizon has no care for thier retail sales)
Can you buy an AT&T iPhone without having a phone number assigned to it? Can you buy an AT&T iPhone without it even once connecting to the AT&T network even once? I am not talking resales, but new iPhone. There is also,I am certain, a way for them to know what is a new phone vs resale activation. Otherwise, it isn't on their network and not reported.
yes to both (I've done it twice at the Apple store).
"There is also,I am certain, a way for them to know what is a new phone vs resale activation. " I'm sure there is as well (imei number), but now you are reaching very far to justify your position. If AT&T was so dependent on second hand sales, they would say something to the shareholders. As for new sales, it's not legal for AT&T to report sales from other companies (such as Apple or Best Buy) as their own.
Let's just look at your original article on AT&T that you sourced (you can apply the same to Verizon). In your article, you had this nugget; "AT&T has announced their Q4 2012 financial results, and out of a record 10.2 million smartphones sold, a record 8.6 million were iPhones". Which is the basis for your statement of "Almost 9 out of 10 AT&T customers bought 4-inch or smaller iPhones last quarter". Now lets take a look at what AT&T really said, shall we?
"Record smartphone sales of 10.2 million..." <-- note it says sales.
"In the quarter, the company activated a record 8.6 million iPhones, with 16 percent new to AT&T..." <-- not, it says activations.
What AT&T does not tell you is the following; how many AT&T sales were the iPhone and how many total smartphone activations there were (or even total activations in general). They make it impossible to make any sort of analysis based on thier data (other than they sold and activated a lot of iPhones)
AT&T personally had to correct macrumors for the same issue, so it's not like you were alone in this.
They at least learned from their mistake. Can you?
The main reason why I have an iphone is exactly because of it's size. I tried to use GS3 and Google Nexus but these are way too big in my hand it feels as if i'm holding a shovel, very uncomfortable to hold and type with one hand. I mean come on, what's up with this "shovel" trend in android world? I'm an average man with average hands. I hope that if Apple will ever decide to release a "phablet" they will also keep the original iphone size without making it a budget low-end phone. There are many people who don't want large phones, I use NY subway to get to work and I'd say about 70% of people I see on the trains have iphones. Not mention almost everyone at my work too, with few exceptions..
Apple offereded one size iPhone for the first 5 years... then 1/4" taller on the iPhone 5.
So who knows what people will choose if they have the choice of a bigger iPhone?
You're right... a "phablet" isn't for everyone... but why not 4.5" or so?
like I said, the bigger variety to chose from -the better, but look what's happening with android devices. The GS3 is the flagship of android world and then they made a mini version of it which surely looks very good and small enough to satisfy needs of those who skipped GS3 because of it's size (like me for example) but why, WHY Samsung had to turn this S3 mini into a budget low-end phone? what's up with this? Again, people like me will just skip the whole line of GS3 devices altogether. I actually really like the simplicity of iOS and it's skeuomorphic design but the size was number one important factor for me.
But take note: that's YOUR case.
What about those that want a larger screen?
For people who think Apple can do little to no wrong, you all are very against the idea that Apple could simply make two devices. A big screened device and a smaller one.
The fear is justified though. If Apple were to this, they might just end up cannabilizing the smaller iphone and then....dare I say it....
You'll all be stuck with big iPhones! Oh no!
Or, in another scenerio, they could do as they do currently with the Mac and iPads: allow them to co-exist despite sales eating of one eating into the other.
I got tired of waiting for a substantially larger screen. I figured Apple will take another 5 years to increase it's size of their device. However, time will tell. Besides, I know one thing is for certain, Apple doesn't give a hoot about ticking off their existing customers. Look what they did with the iPad 3 and how they alienated their customers by eliminating it and focusing on the iPad 2 and iPad 4.
I like how Rene generalized all people who ask for bigger screened phones as geeks.
You do realize that if Apple had given people a choice between a 5inch screened device and a 4inch device, and that there's a very good chance that most would have went with the larger one right?
Lately, I've noticed more and more the arrogance in your articles and frankly, it disgust me. Your writing was at one time more critical and though it always spoke of Apple as a great company, you expressed it in a humble way.
Now... Not so much.
These articles you write show how much Apple has to backtrack on things they have done to adjust to a changing market, one where they aren't always the leaders anymore. And you know what? That's cool. A smart company like Apple knows this has to be done unless they want to be in the position they were in over a decade ago.
But to sit and make it seem like their geniuses for figuring out how to make a larger screened iPhone is ridiculous.
They could just as easily make a new resolution as they did with the iPad and call it a day.
It would be just as easy and would maintain Retina branding without justification. We already know developers would jump at the chance to be first out the gate with larger resolution apps just as case was with the iPad.
Again, this article is laughable.
I realize I could simply not read this article or not comment, but I really hope you return to how you previously wrote. Not this pompous guy who makes excuses for how Apple knows that change is inevitable and that if you don't make the appropriate moves at the right time, success can easily slip away.
He actually said this.
"For people with accessibility issues, for whom buttons and text are too small on every iPhone released to date, that could be really welcome news."
Then said "and for shoppers whom bigger as a feature"
So, no, he didn't call them all geeks.
Remember, Apple rarely listens to what customers say they want.
So aside from geeks who keep posting about how they really want it, and shoppers for whom bigger as a feature is always better, Apple might not feel any pressing, mainstream need to add another screen size to the iPhone product line. Yet.
So... Yeah. Rene did refer to some people as geeks.
Some people ARE geeks. Probably most of the people in this thread. But that's not what you originally called him out for:
"I like how Rene generalized all people who ask for bigger screened phones as geeks."
You got it wrong, then when corrected, you changed your tune--missing his point every step of the way.
Generalized as one or the other right? I corrected myself when I pasted his exact words.
So what was his point?
Rene is simply hedging his bets now to cover what may happen in the future.
It's funny how soon the tune will change should Apple make a bigger screened phone.
It very well could, but you would be missing the point.
Those who are fans of Apple products are so because they have earned it. They may not always be first, but when they do, it is usually done in a way that impresses. When they do a larger iPhone, it won't be just because everyone else is doing it, and not be just so they can improve battery life, (the main driver at the beginning to the larger screen size). It will be because it truly adds to the the experience.
For instance, I am intrigued by the new Z10 and BB10. Looks like a solid phone/OS. I like the newer Motorola phones. However, on the flip side, it baffles me that Samsung is the "gold standard" for Android phones, when they aren't the best.
Are hot, sexy, fashionista girls geeks to? Look at how many are sporting a Galaxy 3 or another large cell phone? These are the same females who said they can't imagine having anything bigger than an iPhone. It's too bad that Ritchie can't write an article where he doesn't blow it and says something that makes himself appear like a fool or ignorant.
I honestly hope they come out with a bigger iPhone give us more of a choice but everyone on here is oh that's to big I wouldn't get it its a phone not a tablet weren't you the sane people saying 4 inches was to big and 3.5 was the sweet spot and let me guess 4 inches is now the sweet spot lol you guys make me laugh if apple comes out with a phone bigger than the note 2 you will be all over it saying oh yea 6.5 inches now that's the sweet spot everything apple does is not perfect and sorry to say but just extending the screen half an inch really didn't do it for me I'm just going to stick out with my "sweet spot" 3.5 inch 4s and pray they come out with something bigger maybe 4.2 and a little more width and keep the narrow one for you one handed guys
My first IPhone is the 5. I came from the Android camp and it wasn't an easy decision. If it wasn't for my iPad experience I most likely wouldn't have switched, but I'm so glad I did. Funny thing, I thought that I really wanted the larger phone but I now realize that I didn't. I love the one handed usage (which I strangely didn't do on my Galaxy - I assume that there is some Apple brilliance going on here!) and when I see someone talking on a Note I think it looks ridiculous. And besides, my pockets are full now! Where would I put one of these monsters.
I am on both sides (Android and Apple). Android OS even with a pure interface on the Android Asus 7 leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to lagging and customer service. I don't intend to get another Android device for at least another 5 years. Maybe then Google will realize fragmentation has got to stop and provide a lag free OS.
I get no such lag on my Nexus 4, though it may be because the processors get a break from multitasking due to a ridiculous 2 GB of RAM. You're right about Android not taking advantage of its available resources fully, and I hope that one day, the Dalvik VM becomes so lightweight that it does virtually nothing to performance. That said, my Nexus 4 is comparable to the iPhone 5 in terms of smoothness, and it costs half as much full retail. I think that was reason enough to choose a Nexus, especially since Google manages both the hardware and the software with that brand.
What might interest me is if a 5" iPhone ran iPad rather than iPhone apps. Could that be done? If so, the added functionality of iPad apps on a phone would offset the inconvenience of a two-handed phone, at least for me.
Launching the very first "PhonePad" in the world would better fit the company's innovator image than just another UpSize phone.
I have a couple friends with large-screen Android phones like the Samsung Galaxy S3 and the Motorola Atrix. Some of them have tablets and some of them don't but wanted one. However since they started using these large-screen Android phones their usage of their tablets decreased significantly and those that didn't have a tablet but wanted one no longer want one. Their phones are with them everywhere they go and the screen size is big enough that they can do some things comfortably on it that just can't be currently done with an iPhone. Heck they hardly even use their computers anymore either. They basically do everything on their phones.
Now I'm not saying I would prefer a larger screen iPhone, and I could never give up my Mac or iPad, but based on what I've experienced with some of my friends it seems pretty clear to me that there's definitely a market for this type of thing.
I havent read all the comments but, Consider this Apple has only one mobile phone device that is the 4" iPhone 5, the 3.5" screens on the iPhone 4 ('s) is going to get phased out sooner or later... So I think if Apple do decide to add a 5" iPhone model to its range & bring the mobile phone range of their company up to 2 devices then it would make good business sense as I do online trading and work on my iPhone 5 when I'm on the go (which is always) but always get frustrated when I feel I definitely needed a wider and maybe little bigger screen. I know there is an iPad mini tablet available (for the trollin' posters) but why do I need to carry 2 different devices if I just had the option of a little more usable screen space to be happy!
I am sure I am not the only one who would think that to have a 4" iPhone for average users and 5" iPhone for the power users in Apples mobile phone range would make a lot of market share sense?!
The Windows Phone in your comparison shot is a Lumia 900, not a 920. It has the old Wndows logo, not the new Windows 8 logo. And the 900 has a 4.3" screen while the 920 has a 4.5" screen.
Well, I guess I'm just sticking to the iPhone 4S/5. If I wanted a bigger phone, I would've bought the Samsung Galaxy S3 or a Note already. To be honest, I don't think there's really anything Apple can do (aside from adding NFC chips, better battery lifes or making their phones waterproof) in order to get me to buy their next models. Unless they stop offering iOS updates to the older models or something.
Re: "... Apple might not feel any pressing, mainstream need to add another screen size to the iPhone product line. Yet."
Not in the U.S. But in Asia, giant phones are quite the rage. But, again, today's raging fad may become tomorrow's has-been cliche. (Anyone sick of Gangnam Style yet? Uh-huh. Thought so.)
Re: "But if and when they do, stretching the screen offers less complexity, and less impact on both iOS and developers."
And it would also create a whole lot more interior volume, given the same thickness. And that extra volume could be used to either add more battery or to create empty space. Why the empty space?
To make manufacturing easier and faster. Tolerances would be larger, making it easier to assemble the "iPhone maxi" faster than the iPhone 5 (or 4S or 4) can be assembled. That would help to bring down the production costs a bit, but more importantly it would allow for higher volume production.
But whatever. I prefer the 4" screen size to anything larger. I wear shrink-to-fit Levi's 501s and that left front pocket is pretty cramped with an iPhone 5 and a wallet jammed into it.
"To make manufacturing easier and faster. Tolerances would be larger, making it easier to assemble the "iPhone maxi" faster than the iPhone 5 (or 4S or 4) can be assembled. That would help to bring down the production costs a bit, but more importantly it would allow for higher volume production."
So according to your theory, the so-called lower-cost phone & larger-screen phone may end up being the same product? Interesting.
Just a thought on having two separate "new iPhones." Apple and their touchscreen hardware partners have spent a lot of time, money, and effort on the current LCD technology. Wouldn't it make sense to keep amortizing that expense over a few more years? To take advantage of the trailing edge of the cost vs. time curve? I think so.
On the other hand, Apple can and will use next-gen touchscreen technology when it's mass-producable and when it's cheap enough. So, sooner or later, we just might see iOS devices with some sort of advanced OLED technology. (And Apple and Sharp have the technology and assembly process patents to have exclusivity on that advanced OLED technology.)
So, given that Apple may soon be able to choose from two screen technologies, old and new, wouldn't it make sense to use the old trailing-edge LCD technology on a bigger, cheaper iPhone? That technology has been refined, and production has been streamlined enough to keep yields high and costs low.
And wouldn't it make sense to use the new leading-edge technology (possibly OLED) on the normal-sized high-end 4" iPhone 6 and later? Because that's where every cubic millimeter counts. An OLED screen would eliminate the need for LED backlights, and could reduce battery size requirements. Because OLED pixels plus IGZO conductors should be dramatically more efficient than LCD plus amorphous silicon.
If Apple does ship a bigger iPhone, and if Apple does develop new technology for a next-gen normal iPhone, I think it makes sense to use different screen technologies on the two. Older, high volume, trailing-edge technology on the big iPhone. Because the larger screen could allow for internal volume large enough to add battery capacity. Newer, leading-edge technology on the conventional 4" iPhone. Because slimness is a top design priority.
Doesn't that dual-technology approach make sense? At least until the Apple / Sharp OLED technology comes down in price enough to be used across all iPhones and iPod touch.
You make many good points & I, for one, am not against a bigger iPhone. The only problem I have is Apple going "backwards" to 264ppi for the rumored bigger iPhone while the Android camp is marching towards 400+ ppi. Granted, content will be easier to read on a 264ppi screen because pixels will be bigger but you lose out on information density.
Personally, I prefer Apple go to a 4.5" screen with a 1280x720 resolution and still retain the 326ppi pixel density. Yes, that does mean, in the short term, current iPhone apps will have to run in a stretched-mode but developers have shown that they will adapt - especially on a platform that generates the vast majority of money for developers.
Big screens are in, if they weren't the other OEMs wouldn't making and selling lots of them. As long as Apple continues to cater to women, teen girls and skinny jeans wearing hipsters, they are doomed to continued loss of market share.
As a bifocal wearing, bluetooth using, iPhone and iPad toting mobile professional trying to go paperless, this looks like it has a lot of merit. Bluetooth means I don't have to hold a ridiculously sized phone up to my ear for extended periods. A hip holster means it would comfortably go anywhere like my iP5. And it promises it would do 70% of what my current combo does; the iPad may stay in the office or car unless I know I'll have to show documents or files at length to somebody else. I'd just keep my iPad3 until it literally dies (and switch off the mobile data plan in the meanwhile) and use the cheapest iPad or other tablet as a document and book viewer using dropbox.
That's why I can't see Apple doing this. It doesn't just want to sell me a subsidized phone every two years; it needs to sell me a phone AND an unsubsidized tablet. And if sales of either device level off or drop, it will be more severely savaged by Wall Street and investors than it is now.
Whether the stats Rene states are correct or not, they may not indicate that people prefer a 4" phone to a larger device, it may (and likely) means people prefer iOS to Android and WP8. There is nothing wrong with that, but those numbers don't say anything about how well a 5" iOS device would (or would not) sell. The iPad was/is selling just fine. Despite this, there is clearly a market for a smaller device. The fact that so many have expressed their opinions on both sides of the 5" iPhone topic indicate there is in fact a market for it. Apple knows how to avoid fragmentation and will do if (when) a larger iPhone comes out.
Many of us, myself included wished the iPhone 5 was actually a 5 inch device. It would solve my needs and many others too. I find it hard to believe that Apple didn't have the insight to anticipate that people will actually flock to a 5 inch device. Why did they not come out with a 5 inch phone back in September?
I am very confident a lot of folk who switched to Android would jump on or back to Apple if they had a 5 inch phone. I here them frequently imply, "mine is bigger than yours" and how awesome their pictures are on their 5 inch smartphone.
Many people miss the mark that a phone is now secondary to carrying their portable computer around. If my now (antique) small flip phone that fits in the palm of my had wifi and tethering ability I wouldn't care less about having a smartphone. I'd just tether it to my iPod Touch. Of course, I wish my Touch had a GPS chip.
WHAT IF?.... they just used an 1024x768 resolution and ran iPad apps along iPhone with borders. I think it would make more sense to run iPad apps at 5-inches, and I'd prefer that myself.
I agree with most of your points. Except
"Almost 9 out of 10 AT&T customers bought 4-inch or smaller iPhones last quarter rather than all big screen Android and Windows Phones combined, and roughly 6 out of 10 Verizon customers did the same. So aside from geeks who keep posting about how they really want it, and shoppers for whom bigger as a feature is always better, Apple might not feel any pressing, mainstream need to add another screen size to the iPhone product line. Yet."
This is again, typical of American where the world, or heck even the Universe means US and US only. If you look at else where, or Asian Market ( Where Apple said they hope China to be their biggest Market ), the numbers would be exactly the opposite.
Adding another option to the iPhone size mix (see http://www.marco.org/2013/01/31/iphone-plus-speculation and http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/07/04/bloomberg-ipad-mini): how about taking the original screen dimension (320*480) of an iPhone with the iPad 4 screen density of 264ppi?
Et voila: iPhone Mini
IMHO there is a huge market for a basic (read, cheaper) phone without the über-fancy tech-geek features (no 4g, no retina, no A6) for people just wanting to (surprise, surprise) phone with their pals. They're currently left behind with clumsy, limited, crippled plastic handset of the last century.
After reducing the screen size according to the maths, the hardware was moved in place except for the hardware buttons reduced to 80%.
A green indicator visualizes a 44px sized finger for which the keyboard was adjusted in remembrance of the "original" T9 physical keys.
To give you an idea of the "real" size I've added the famous SE T610 and Kirks Communicator to the mix (speculative iPhone Mini, current iPhone 5, speculative iPhone Plus).
Re: "Then, just like there's an 11- and 13-inch MacBook Air, and a 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro, there's a 4- and 5-inch iPhone, and a 7.9 and 9.7-inch iPad."
Except for one huge difference. The larger MBA and MBP have the same pixel density as the smaller ones. The larger iPad has a higher pixel density than the iPad mini. And, of course, the larger MBA, MBP, and iPad are more expensive than the smaller ones. Makes perfect sense.
But the 5-inch iPhone would have a lower pixel density than the 4-inch iPhone. So Apple couldn't justify a higher price for the bigger phone. The 5-inch iPhone would have to be cheaper. And a larger iPhone that's cheaper than the smaller Retina iPhone would go against all other Apple product line pricing tiers.
I'm not a marketing guy, but it just seems unlikely to me that Apple would position a bigger anything, iPhone or not, at a lower price than a smaller anything. They've trained us to expect that bigger = better.
Unless, of course, the 5-inch iPhone isn't for us fully indoctrinated Westerners. Maybe the 5-inch iPhone is for China Mobile only. And because China Mobile uses an oddball variant of 3G, that 5-inch iPhone won't work on any other network. And therefore there would be zero gray market for 5-inch iPhones outside of China, hence zero cannibalization of the 4-inch Retina iPhone. I think it could work in that scenario.
China Mobile-only, lower-cost, lower resolution, bigger screen.
As I get older and my eyes age (I turn 47 in May), I find that it does get harder to see certain types of text in the current size (of my iPhone 4). Forgetting about the likelihood that my next pair of glasses will likely be bi-focals, I would welcome the possibility of a larger iPhone than the 5. We've been playing upgrade musical chairs in our fam so my next upgrade won't be until Feb 2014. By then, surely the next iteration or 2 might be out. I anxiously await what may come......
I don't get the assumption that the screen would simply be stretched and thus the UI would be scaled up. They added pixels to the iPhone 5 to get the bigger screen size, I don't see why they wouldn't do that to get a wider phone as well. Now this could allow for rows of 5 icons wide, but an option to make the UI elements bigger for those with less than stellar eyesight would be good too. I don't see the point of a larger screen (other than the benefit to those with poor eyesight) if it isn't going to lead to more content being capable of being displayed.
Good point. A 5" screen with the same pixel density as the current iPhones would actually allow an extra column of icons on the home screen as well as an extra row of icons. That's a possibly overwhelming 35 icons compared to the iPhone5's 24.
Then there could be the option to stretch the UI for those who are currently squinting at the iPhone. The option would return to 24 icons on the home screen but the icons would be bigger. The retina resolutions enables this with minimum blurring, at least for the squinters.
The same thing can be applied to apps that were designed only for the smaller 4" screen. A setting could decide whether the app should be stretched to fill the 5" screen (again, little blurring) or view the app in original pixel-perfect size with black bands on all sides.
I think it is not a big difference but still a very great product. Some new features added not as impressive as the ones that for example the 3g brought. But I do own one and I am really in love with it.
Apple put a lot of thought and care into coming up with an appropriately sized device that can adequately be used one-handed. For one-handed use, Apple nailed it in my opinion.
Just curious here, how often does everyone use their iPhone one-handed? Me personally? Hardly ever. There is certainly a market for larger devices. I would prefer a slightly larger iPhone with a larger, easier to use buttons. I helped my nephews and sister-in-law with their Galaxy S3's and the one thing that I took away was I didn't find that the size was a problem like I thought it might be. It went in and out of my pocket just fine – even in an otter box.
Don't get me wrong, I love my iPhone, but I'd love a slightly larger one more. I think adding a larger iPhone to their stable would be a hit. (I'm not sure about 5 inches though)
For those who like the size of the current iPhones, that's great. The fact remains that clearly many people with money in their pockets are choosing other devices for the simple reason that they want a larger device. I think this market is too large for Apple to ignore.
"Almost 9 out of 10 AT&T customers bought 4-inch or smaller iPhones last quarter rather than all big screen Android and Windows Phones combined, and roughly 6 out of 10 Verizon customers did the same. So aside from geeks who keep posting about how they really want it, and shoppers for whom bigger as a feature is always better, Apple might not feel any pressing, mainstream need to add another screen size to the iPhone product line. Yet."
The question here is why those 9/10 and 6/10 bought the 4" iPhone rather than the larger alternatives, IMO. For those of us loyal to the Apple world, there is not a compelling enough reason to change brands...yet. So, my argument is that they bought that form factor because there is no alternative. I think a 5" iPhone would be an ideal size, but not the stretched form factor mentioned in the article. Make it not only longer, but wider. I don't care about being able to do something one handed on my phone, I'd rather have the larger form factor. I currently own an iPhone 5 and an iPad mini, and like both. However, a 5" iPhone, with an improved iOS7 would be the ideal.
I always check out this website for iPhone alternatives - www.microsoftapple.com - My personal favourite is the Nokia Lumia because of the camera and speed of the operating system.
Scaled up interface size is what I need on my next phone. Will it be an iPhone? Hope so.
All you 'no, just no' folks need to take a breath and get into someone else's needs for a second. Maybe this slightly caustic post will get your attention. I don't hate you.
You will still have the finger size iPhones for your tiny fingers and fighter-pilot eyesight. No one is saying that will go away or be taken away. You can still accurately hit 1111 for your PIN (if you have one at all) and no one is saying you have to look at your iPhone before you have your morning coffee or get out of bed.
Me, I have to turn off simple passcode. So, I have a qwerty keyboard to stare at when alerts go off that I have to answer in the middle of the night. Also, I've been relying on Apple products longer than some of you 'no phablets, they're so embarrassing' folks have been alive. This means my eyesight ain't that hot and those 6 point fonts in a lot of the apps, content and interface are making my iPhone less delightful.
So, when my 4s contract runs out, I'll be getting a phone with a larger interface. You can point and laugh at me, but I'm hoping my larger phone is an iPhone.


text:
Vegpro Group: Growing in Harmony
David E. Bell, Brian Milder, Mary L. Shelman
Publication Date:Dec 06, 2007Discipline:MarketingSource:Harvard Business School |
Product number:508001-HCB-ENG Length:29p |
English Hardcopy Black & White Out for Revision
Also Available in:
English Hardcopy Black & White | $ 6.93
Vegpro, a horticulture company, is Kenya's largest exporter of fresh vegetables and flowers to top supermarkets in the U.K. and Europe. In 2007, Vegpro's business is threatened by growing consumer concern about the environmental impact of food production and transport, including "food miles". The case describes the company's growth, which includes the use of owned land and outgrowers for production, the addition of value-added processing to obtain premium prices, and the introduction of global certification to ensure food safety and meet retailer and consumer requirements. The case also discusses the potential impact of increased consumer awareness of ethical sourcing and introduces the potential trade off between local production and economic development.
learning objective:
Illustrates inherant conflicts between social causes
subjects covered:
Consumers; Global business; Government regulations; International business; Natural resources; Small & medium-sized enterprises
- Geographic: Africa
- Industry: Agribusiness
- Industry: Food
- Company Employee Count: 6,500
- Company Revenue: $95 million
- Event Year Begin: 2007


text:
Waste and Reprocessing
Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB's (SKB's) Clab interim storage facility, at Oskarshamn, Sweden. [Image: SKB; Photographer: Allan Borg Rotate AB]
Rock vault in SKB's Clab interim storage facilityin Sweden divided into shafts. Here intermediate-level waste is kept in drums or mulds. When the shafts are full, they are sealed with concrete blocks. This is done by remote-controlled overhead crane.


text:
I love it I lost about 100 lbs in about 5 months it gives you so much energy you feel like a kid again with so much energy
It worked for four months. But it seemed not to work very well after having this drug in your system for months. Like any drug, I guess.
I started this 10months after having my first son I have honestly tried losing weight by diet an exercise an nothing So after talking with my doctor we decided to try this for one month an she said only if I lose 5 pounds she will give me another month on it well I started it Sept 4 2014 at 284bls an today Sept 14 2014 I'm down to 265 that's 19bls I've lost an honestly I haven't had a appetite since I had my son but it does work an I've had NO side effects this will help me get back to my normal size an life style give it a chance!
It doesn't work. Get your sleep, far more important than not sleeping in this drug. No idea how people are succeeding other than having the pill help mentally with food cravings. I've been on it for 8 months & gained 20 lbs. Of you're under asters it won't work Hands down not worth the side effects.
I started this medication 05/12/14 I was at 149 lbs after having my 2nd baby and tying my tubes I had issues losing the baby weight... on a day before the month 06/11/14 I weigh in at 137 lbs... so happy
I started taking phentermine a few months after having my first son. I lost the weight I needed to lose and in a short amount of time. I also have Fibro and CFS. Phentermine gave me enough energy to work out while also curbing my appetite. Now a few months after having my second son I found myself having the same kind of crash I did after my first son. So I am currently taking Phentermine again. After a few days I am already feeling a lot better and have had the energy I need to work out and take care of my boys. Anyone with Fibro and CFS will know how important having the ability to move around and have enough energy to play with your kids without hurting is! The only side effect I had was dry mouth. (A simple piece of gum will help that)
I've been taking this for 5 weeks and I'm down 10lbs. Exactly what my doctor was looking for. I haven't had any side effects, except for the "speedy" feeling. Though it is not as bad anymore. This has really helped me with my snacking and portion controls. It is VERY EASY not to eat at all while taking this. I find it very hard to eat lunch but I know I have to get something in me...so I will have a yogurt and apple...or a half of turkey sandwich. Starving yourself will not help you long term. Also, as with any weight loss plan you should incorporate some exercise for better results.
I was prescribed this drug by my GP 4 days ago while also working with my PDOC. I am bipolar and the drugs I was prescribed were wreaking havoc on my body. I had gained up to 50 lbs over a few yrs and was so tired I could barely work. Right after taking this drug my appetite decreased and my energy increased. I was surprised. My GP nurse did tell me that when you go off this med you can gain back the weight and more so I needed to exercise. Well I know what not to eat and to exercise it was the surgar cravings. I hope I have success and so do all of you.
Trying to control the high fat content in my blood. I am in menopause and gain weight without eating. It is more safe for me to get the fat out of my body and I need help to do this. Because working out at the gym and watching what I eat has not worked. The phentermine is working. In 3 months I have lost 25 pounds. I still eat, but a lot less than usual. The phentermine kills my appetite. It also killed my cravings for sugar and salt and this is good because I have high blood pressure.
DOES NOT work for an appetite suppressant! It's a "crack" pill! Facial and mouth spasms, migraines, skull/head feels fractured! CONSTANT hunger mixed with heart burn and nausea feeling ALL day, if you don't continually drink water/liquids then your throat can reach a point to where it's SO dry it feels like it's closing up and it becomes difficult to swallow. First day you feel super energetic (and I was taking HALF of a pill at a time!) and can't sit still by day 3 you feel drained, hard to get out of bed, don't want to be around anyone, depressed, possibly addicted and uncomfortable all over. I wish I had never even heard about this medication much less tried it. :(


text:
Did your Do Not Disturb bug fix itself yesterday as Apple said it would?
As we all know, the Do Not Disturb feature of iOS 6 that lets you mute Notification Center alerts during specified periods. Apple told us that the problem would fix itself on January 7; we want to know if it is now working again for you?
Do Not Disturb is a feature that I was using every day to stop annoying notifications coming through at night waking me up unnecessarily. Of course you could still use the Do Not Disturb feature, the only area that was problematic for some reason was the scheduling of turning it on and off automatically at set times. This failed on January 1 2013 and Do Not Disturb had to be used in a manual mode.
I can report that my Do Not Disturb scheduling is back to normal now; it came on last night and automatically switched itself off again at 7am this morning. How are you finding it? Has your Do Not Disturb scheduling gone back to normal now as Apple said it would?
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
Did your Do Not Disturb bug fix itself yesterday as Apple said it would?
Are you tired of going office daily? Earn 50$ per hour working from home with Google! I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here is what I've been doing, GoogleCash.fab17.c0m
Mine fixed its self on the 6th of Jan. At midnight it's scheduled Do Not Disturb Feature came on, at 8am on 6th Jan, it went off again. :)
Mine didn't work last night. iPhone 4. I'll try turning the scheduling off then on, maybe that will fix it for tonight...
Strangely enough my Do Not Disturb worked fine this entire time. Until last night. I got 3 e-mails through the night that sounded the little alarm indicator and woke me up each time. This morning I noticed the moon symbol was not displayed and Do Not Disturb had actually been shut off. Hopefully it works fine now.
"As we all know, the Do Not Disturb feature of iOS 6 that lets you mute Notification Center alerts during specified periods."
That sentence makes no sense.
Ars has a pretty good (speculative, but makes sense) explanation for this bug. Simply put, some parts of iOS use the Gregorian calendar, and some parts use the ISO calendar. The first week of the ISO calendar. The first week of the ISO calendar year is the Monday that contains the first Thursday in January, and, on this year, that meant January 7th. This might have just been a typo that got institutionalized -- yyyy (Gregorian) vs YYYY (ISO) is all it takes, but until the various parts of iOS agree, there will be problems during periods the two calendar systems do not match up.
If you want to see code illustrating the problem: https://gist.github.com/4439267
Mine still doesn't work. If I turn the do not disturb feature on none of the calls under my favs can get through to me--it's really annoying.