Rogzilla
Jan 10, 01:52 AM
You know what I want?
A small UMPC tablet, multitouch and pen input. Really, not a replacement computer but something like a large PDA. Something I can take with me, sit and draw/paint, write blogs at WIFI hotspots, make notes in meetings, and work on my various writings (screenplays, short stories, ect), then come home and sync it up with my iMac. A portable alternative for someone who already has a desktop.
I am still new to this whole Apple thing...love my iMac I got a year ago...but I have no idea what to expect.
A small UMPC tablet, multitouch and pen input. Really, not a replacement computer but something like a large PDA. Something I can take with me, sit and draw/paint, write blogs at WIFI hotspots, make notes in meetings, and work on my various writings (screenplays, short stories, ect), then come home and sync it up with my iMac. A portable alternative for someone who already has a desktop.
I am still new to this whole Apple thing...love my iMac I got a year ago...but I have no idea what to expect.
Edge100
Oct 23, 12:26 PM
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
patrick0brien
Jul 28, 01:39 PM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
phillipduran
May 3, 04:38 PM
So maybe, just maybe you fandroids out there, Apple had the foresight to design an ecosystem that just works and do it the right way.
Seems like as the Android OS gets bigger, it moves more in the direction of being like iOS.
"were free and open!" ya right :rolleyes:
Seems like as the Android OS gets bigger, it moves more in the direction of being like iOS.
"were free and open!" ya right :rolleyes:
more...
timmillwood
Oct 3, 01:30 PM
lets hope we get new MBPs before Macworld in Jan!
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
Met
May 4, 12:16 AM
As Android has gained in popularity, however, things have begun to tighten up, with Google recently exerting control (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control-over-android-as-fragmentation-increases/) in an attempt to reduce fragmentation in what has long been billed as an open system available for tweaking and customization by any and all who wish to deploy hardware utilizing the platform.
I wish people would stop making a big deal about this rule that has existed from the beginning of Android. It has ALWAYS been there; it's not something new! Google implemented this for OEM's that want EARLY access to the code and OEM's that want access to Google's closed sources apps, such as the Market and other Google apps for Android.
I wish people would stop making a big deal about this rule that has existed from the beginning of Android. It has ALWAYS been there; it's not something new! Google implemented this for OEM's that want EARLY access to the code and OEM's that want access to Google's closed sources apps, such as the Market and other Google apps for Android.
more...
bearbo
Jan 12, 02:45 AM
Overthrow of the government?
:confused: i suppose that's the only definition for revolutionary for you? if so, what do you see in iPhone that's revolutionary?
And only 200 new patents.
is there anything other than the fact there's "200 new patents" (where did you get this anyway?) that you find revolutionary about iPhone?
Apple is not a religion, Steve Jobs is not God.
i'm outa this thread.
:confused: i suppose that's the only definition for revolutionary for you? if so, what do you see in iPhone that's revolutionary?
And only 200 new patents.
is there anything other than the fact there's "200 new patents" (where did you get this anyway?) that you find revolutionary about iPhone?
Apple is not a religion, Steve Jobs is not God.
i'm outa this thread.
FelixGV
Oct 3, 12:30 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if the once closed iPod+iTunes ecosystem suddenly became open to every music store except the Zune Marketplace? Fairplay would effectively replace PlaysForSure, the only closed DRM would be the Zune's, and every other music player manufacturer would be left with no music store compatibility at all until they slowly die... And the mythic Apple vs Micro$oft war would rage once again.
As others have mentionned, I see 2 negative things with this:
more...
founder Mark Zuckerberg.
2010 Mark Zuckerberg,
more...
Mark Zuckerberg is proving
Mark Zuckerberg Facts
more...
mark zuckerberg wife priscilla
facebook mark zuckerberg and
more...
Mark Zuckerberg Wife Priscilla
26-years old Mark Zuckerberg
more...
Mark Zuckerberg Priscilla Chan
founder Mark Zuckerberg is
founder Mark Zuckerberg to
As others have mentionned, I see 2 negative things with this:
more...
Much Ado
Jan 9, 01:30 PM
I accidentally just went on BBC News... spoilt one surprise for myself :(
Yeah, i don't think the internet is a safe place until after weve seen the QT vid ourselves.
Meanwhile, the whole world is going nuts about a 300Gb iPod with built in Sat-Nav and Intel Quad-Core processors and we're sitting here nervously going at the alcohol, refusing to be tempted.
I love every minute :D
MA.
Oh, and in reply to the guy who is going to give up at 8, please don't put spoilers on here if you do take a look. That would not make me happy after all this waiting! :)
Yeah, i don't think the internet is a safe place until after weve seen the QT vid ourselves.
Meanwhile, the whole world is going nuts about a 300Gb iPod with built in Sat-Nav and Intel Quad-Core processors and we're sitting here nervously going at the alcohol, refusing to be tempted.
I love every minute :D
MA.
Oh, and in reply to the guy who is going to give up at 8, please don't put spoilers on here if you do take a look. That would not make me happy after all this waiting! :)
AppliedVisual
Oct 18, 10:55 PM
Therein lies the issue. HD DVD's first titles had an avg bitrate of 16-20Mbps with peaks of almost 30Mbps. Batman Begins just shipped with an avg bitrate of 13Mpbs and it's PQ is top notch.
While it's neither here nor there, I watched Batman Begins last night on HD-DVD. The PQ was pretty good, but not the best I've seen out of HD-DVD. The PQ wasn't any better than Serenity (which is also quite good) and I thought wasn't as good as The Corpse Bride. I was somewhat disappointed with some of the banding and edge artifacts on white/bright objects. High contrast edges tended to show some halos at times. But yeah, either way, the PQ coming out of HD-DVD is great.
I doubt we see another widely distributed movie format on disc.
You may be right about the disc part... Upcoming storage media technologies are taking various other shapes. Many of the holographic applications being researched now take various shapes from cards about the size and thickness of a credit card to a 4cm cube. Not all are based on a spinning disc implementation. :D
I think there will always be a tangible medium for delivering a hard copy of music or movies. Consumers want it. People were saying this very same thing about music 10 years ago... Here we are today, CD sales continue to hold steady even with online buying options. Even for what people download, most still want a type of media to store that on and not necessarily hard drives or their iPod being the final destination.
It may take time for another format to supplant HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, but it will happen. 1080P HD delivered via a compressed data stream is hardly the pinnacle of potential for our current display technology, let alone upcoming display systems. Sony and Runco are already shipping 4K projectors at prices lower than 1080P/2K projectors were selling for only 3 years ago. TI is ready to ship full 2K DMD systems for DLP TVs and are applying their wobulation technique to build 4K DLP systems, expected sometime next year. And even as broadband access continues to grow and serve more areas, newer technology will need to come about to increase speeds and overall bandwidth.
We'll see. If yet another disc format comes out I want to see
10-bit per channel RGB
4:2:2 color sampling
huge bandwidth
3840x2160 resolution
Er... How do you figure 30bit RGB and 4:2:2?
Current HD-DVD and Blu-Ray standards allow for 10bpc as does the ATSC broadcast standard. And you would want full 4:4:4 representation for that 10bit color stream.. Why cripple it? While were at it, since we're hypothesizing a new format with huge capacity and ample bandwidth, why not just go full on 16bits/channel 4:4:4, lossless, 4K resolution. I figure that optical/holographic media that could reliably and affordably handle that sort of data requirement is probably about 10 years off. Or about where HD-DVD/Blu-Ray were 10 years ago - just a sparkle of hope in some lab demonstration as the DVD format was just starting to show up. Oh, wow, has it been that long? Yep, almost... I bought my first DVD movie in '98.
I agree on the 4K resolution, though.
While it's neither here nor there, I watched Batman Begins last night on HD-DVD. The PQ was pretty good, but not the best I've seen out of HD-DVD. The PQ wasn't any better than Serenity (which is also quite good) and I thought wasn't as good as The Corpse Bride. I was somewhat disappointed with some of the banding and edge artifacts on white/bright objects. High contrast edges tended to show some halos at times. But yeah, either way, the PQ coming out of HD-DVD is great.
I doubt we see another widely distributed movie format on disc.
You may be right about the disc part... Upcoming storage media technologies are taking various other shapes. Many of the holographic applications being researched now take various shapes from cards about the size and thickness of a credit card to a 4cm cube. Not all are based on a spinning disc implementation. :D
I think there will always be a tangible medium for delivering a hard copy of music or movies. Consumers want it. People were saying this very same thing about music 10 years ago... Here we are today, CD sales continue to hold steady even with online buying options. Even for what people download, most still want a type of media to store that on and not necessarily hard drives or their iPod being the final destination.
It may take time for another format to supplant HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, but it will happen. 1080P HD delivered via a compressed data stream is hardly the pinnacle of potential for our current display technology, let alone upcoming display systems. Sony and Runco are already shipping 4K projectors at prices lower than 1080P/2K projectors were selling for only 3 years ago. TI is ready to ship full 2K DMD systems for DLP TVs and are applying their wobulation technique to build 4K DLP systems, expected sometime next year. And even as broadband access continues to grow and serve more areas, newer technology will need to come about to increase speeds and overall bandwidth.
We'll see. If yet another disc format comes out I want to see
10-bit per channel RGB
4:2:2 color sampling
huge bandwidth
3840x2160 resolution
Er... How do you figure 30bit RGB and 4:2:2?
Current HD-DVD and Blu-Ray standards allow for 10bpc as does the ATSC broadcast standard. And you would want full 4:4:4 representation for that 10bit color stream.. Why cripple it? While were at it, since we're hypothesizing a new format with huge capacity and ample bandwidth, why not just go full on 16bits/channel 4:4:4, lossless, 4K resolution. I figure that optical/holographic media that could reliably and affordably handle that sort of data requirement is probably about 10 years off. Or about where HD-DVD/Blu-Ray were 10 years ago - just a sparkle of hope in some lab demonstration as the DVD format was just starting to show up. Oh, wow, has it been that long? Yep, almost... I bought my first DVD movie in '98.
I agree on the 4K resolution, though.
more...
840quadra
Sep 26, 10:24 AM
In full screen mode?
Mine is choppy. It's like "big steps" of change rather than anything I'd consider smooth. Definitely not precise enough, and not fast enough.
Yes,
That is the only way I edit photos now.
Does Lightroom have full screen editing ? If so, I cannot figure out how to activate it! :(
The full screen editing is going to be the #1 sales point, as that is all I use to edit photos at this point.
So far I am starting to like Lightroom more and more, however I am still liking the aperture interface better as it is similar to the iApps I am used to.
Mine is choppy. It's like "big steps" of change rather than anything I'd consider smooth. Definitely not precise enough, and not fast enough.
Yes,
That is the only way I edit photos now.
Does Lightroom have full screen editing ? If so, I cannot figure out how to activate it! :(
The full screen editing is going to be the #1 sales point, as that is all I use to edit photos at this point.
So far I am starting to like Lightroom more and more, however I am still liking the aperture interface better as it is similar to the iApps I am used to.
maclaptop
Apr 17, 01:10 PM
Google needs to get their **** together if they want to keep competing. Everyone I know that has an Android carries around an iPod too.
Microsoft has Zune, and it's WP7 phones and Apple has iTunes. Google has to rely on Amazon, and even then the Android MP3 App is by far the worst of the 3.
And the point of your post is?
Microsoft has Zune, and it's WP7 phones and Apple has iTunes. Google has to rely on Amazon, and even then the Android MP3 App is by far the worst of the 3.
And the point of your post is?
more...
aswitcher
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
3am for the four hundredth billionth time.
I see the cracks of frustration are showing...or should that be showtiming... :rolleyes:
I see the cracks of frustration are showing...or should that be showtiming... :rolleyes:
stevehp
Oct 10, 04:34 PM
Wireless would work well with iTV too. Stream songs right from your iPod through your entertainment system, controlled through your TV with no cables...Heck, the iPod could stay in your pocket! I'm not holding my breath though...Maybe they are trying to get this out before/at the same time as the Zune?
more...
Queso
Oct 19, 11:30 AM
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
400 pre-splits shares?
My God, man. That's some profit!! :cool:
Do the math. :)
400 pre-splits shares?
My God, man. That's some profit!! :cool:
Patrick J
Apr 30, 03:14 AM
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
And that's exactly why they changed it. To users it isn't apparent that you can click, and sliding on the screen is a waste of time.
And that's exactly why they changed it. To users it isn't apparent that you can click, and sliding on the screen is a waste of time.
more...
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 04:26 PM
Hmm...interesting. Adding wireless capability directly to the iPod would make it more similar to the Zune. I wonder if they could add Bonjour technology to really go head-to-head. Except instead of the stupid (play 3 times) thing that the Zune has, you could actually browse and play shared playlists from other people's iPods (work exactly the same as shared playlists from iTunes now do...).
I believe the scope of a wireless iPod, or any other mass distributed wireless product, will go further than music and playlists. It�s already implemented in museums, etc. as downloadable tour guides; when you enter a town you can get your hands on local maps, local news, history; we might soon see ad boards that will allow you to download more info on products and services – there are endless possibilities.
Closer to the living room I feel iTV needs wireless communication with other Apple products; the iPod or iPhone to control it, even provide media; iPod Hi-Fi to deliver the groove.
I believe the scope of a wireless iPod, or any other mass distributed wireless product, will go further than music and playlists. It�s already implemented in museums, etc. as downloadable tour guides; when you enter a town you can get your hands on local maps, local news, history; we might soon see ad boards that will allow you to download more info on products and services – there are endless possibilities.
Closer to the living room I feel iTV needs wireless communication with other Apple products; the iPod or iPhone to control it, even provide media; iPod Hi-Fi to deliver the groove.
yellow
Jan 10, 04:07 PM
Kind of like using a MBP Front Row Remote at an Apple Conf and switching people's displays to Front Row?
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 06:53 PM
everybody is giving his point of view about why or why not Pro developers should help new ones.)
No one has given a point of view about that. You quite misunderstand what everyone is saying.
As for your code, you still have not really given us a clear indication of at what stage you are now and what isn't working. Now we know you want to do a sort of count down timer. I'm guessing you're trying to make a cooking timer kind of app since you said you were a pastry chef and that was what your first app was based on. Is this correct ? (<-- not a quiz question).
Now, what is not working ? Is the timer getting created ? Is it calling the method identified by the target and selector attributes when the interval you specified ends ? Is it repeating or not repeating (depending on how you set the repeat parameter on it) ?
When a timer repeats, it will simply call back the selector in the target specified.
Does your button that "cancels" it call your cancel method ? What have you done to check this ?
With the little code you posted, and since you haven't provided screenshots of your associations in Interface Builder, these are all pending questions we have that are preventing us from helping you thoroughly. This is not a quiz, these are things we need to know to help you.
So, self refers to my controller.. interesting.
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code. It is highly context dependant.
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
No one has given a point of view about that. You quite misunderstand what everyone is saying.
As for your code, you still have not really given us a clear indication of at what stage you are now and what isn't working. Now we know you want to do a sort of count down timer. I'm guessing you're trying to make a cooking timer kind of app since you said you were a pastry chef and that was what your first app was based on. Is this correct ? (<-- not a quiz question).
Now, what is not working ? Is the timer getting created ? Is it calling the method identified by the target and selector attributes when the interval you specified ends ? Is it repeating or not repeating (depending on how you set the repeat parameter on it) ?
When a timer repeats, it will simply call back the selector in the target specified.
Does your button that "cancels" it call your cancel method ? What have you done to check this ?
With the little code you posted, and since you haven't provided screenshots of your associations in Interface Builder, these are all pending questions we have that are preventing us from helping you thoroughly. This is not a quiz, these are things we need to know to help you.
So, self refers to my controller.. interesting.
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code. It is highly context dependant.
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
7o7munoz7o7
May 3, 02:11 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
Does it really matter what the competition does.
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
lordonuthin
Apr 9, 07:59 PM
Looks like we are getting close to our likely max output of 270-280k ppd... Nice. Let's see if Apple wants to release new Mac pros soon now.
I'm doin' all the ppd I can without spending more money on hardware right now:D I would like to replace 5 machines with a new Mac Pro when they come out (4 really slow and my current Mac Pro). It's h**l waiting for Apple sometimes :eek: Hurry up Apple!! :apple:
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
I'm doin' all the ppd I can without spending more money on hardware right now:D I would like to replace 5 machines with a new Mac Pro when they come out (4 really slow and my current Mac Pro). It's h**l waiting for Apple sometimes :eek: Hurry up Apple!! :apple:
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
Satori
Apr 15, 04:42 PM
There are plenty of competition. Look back the history for the past 10 years. Almost all of them, including Microsoft's versions, failed against iTunes.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
JAT
May 2, 11:20 PM
Wow, I finally got a reply! Didn't expect that, I appreciate it. ;)
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 02:06 PM
I live in one of fairly many Grade II Listed (http://www.heritage.co.uk/apavilions/glstb.html) buildings in the United Kingdom, much older but not quite as large as old Steve's, and there is no surprise when purchasing such a building that you are significantly restricted in what you can do to it.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
