PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 02:44 PM
kinda looks like a Target iPod Nano, no? :p
KingYaba
Apr 15, 03:10 PM
Now that it's part of the platform Apple has no excuse for not including it. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a MBP with this platform that still only has 2.0 connectors.
And no BluRay. ;)
And no BluRay. ;)
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
~Shard~
Aug 29, 12:04 AM
i don't know, but i am not sure about this Intel thing yet!:mad:
Care to elaborate on why?
Care to elaborate on why?
iRobby
Apr 22, 03:00 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not sure how I feel about this or if I'd use it til details are released by Apple. For those not interested know this is an option we can continue using our hard drives on desktops as well as IOS Devices like we are now. Personally, I may just use DropBox for access to all my files including music unless this program has major industry revolutionary characteristics.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Not sure how I feel about this or if I'd use it til details are released by Apple. For those not interested know this is an option we can continue using our hard drives on desktops as well as IOS Devices like we are now. Personally, I may just use DropBox for access to all my files including music unless this program has major industry revolutionary characteristics.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 06:12 PM
My Xeon utilization is only 50% per proc while compressing in Quicktime Pro. Even during an HD export (http://www.macpro.ws/P3.jpg) the fans don't get use.I am compressing EyeTV Broadcast HD recordings with Toast then Handbrake. On the G5 Quad they each use more than two cores occasionally and almost two cores all the time - well over 80% each all the time.
I can crush two files simultaneously to gain even more performance - like 150% faster that way.
I can crush two files simultaneously to gain even more performance - like 150% faster that way.
iGary
Sep 12, 03:29 PM
Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product
That was already a YEAR OLD.
That was already a YEAR OLD.
zin
Mar 30, 12:25 PM
Yep i have few of those...One is 24"
Not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but I found it really funny. :D
Not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but I found it really funny. :D
SeaFox
Sep 26, 09:42 PM
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
Yeah, one of the only ones besides T-Mobile, AllTel, and AT&T Wireless (who they bought out). :rolleyes:
Yeah, one of the only ones besides T-Mobile, AllTel, and AT&T Wireless (who they bought out). :rolleyes:
Skika
Apr 28, 03:20 PM
Cheers!
Squonk
Sep 26, 08:52 AM
Include all the functionality of the Apple remote to allow the iPhone to drive your iTV and Front Row.
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
Diatribe
Sep 19, 03:27 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
I thought they did?:confused:
I thought they did?:confused:
theahnman
Aug 23, 11:55 PM
Seriously, all... this is much better than the alternative. I.e. Apple having to completely re-engineer or stop selling the iPod. $100 million is chump change. Stock market is highly reactionary and irrational. It should all smooth out in the next couple days.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:13 PM
Go back five years. I tell you "Someone told me that I should use iMovie to edit the movies that I made with my video camera. Where can I buy it"? You say: "You should go to an app store". I say "What on earth is an app store?"
No, that wouldn't have happened. You would have said "You should go to a computer store". "You might try a games store, they might have it". You would never have said "You should go to an app store".
You would not have said "What on earth is an app store?". You would have said "Where is it?" because you would have known it is a place that sells apps/applications. Why? Because it is descriptive. And that is the point of the argument.
No, that wouldn't have happened. You would have said "You should go to a computer store". "You might try a games store, they might have it". You would never have said "You should go to an app store".
You would not have said "What on earth is an app store?". You would have said "Where is it?" because you would have known it is a place that sells apps/applications. Why? Because it is descriptive. And that is the point of the argument.
cuestakid
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
I think people need to remember that not every cell phone is avaliable on every carrier-meaning that if this phone is only on a couple of carriers, someone who's carrier isnt avaliable is gonna be whinning and complaining
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:18 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
bchreng
May 3, 01:45 PM
GPU - Are you graphic editing? I don't think any of the games on the Mac really tax the GPU yet. I'd say no.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it.
Cooknn
Sep 11, 10:10 PM
hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99How many movies a month do you watch?! $14.99 * 10 pays my cable bill with internet included :rolleyes:
massiv
Sep 10, 09:28 PM
I think we all are getting caught up in the "core" crazy a little too much. I understand at a professional level the more cores the better. But Apple has delivered this target market its machine, the Mac Pro. I think the Mac Pro will see even more options in its configurations as time goes on, but I don't see them putting the next biggest and best chip in every product. After all, 90% of home computer users are using thier computers for basic functions and not heavy video or audio work, which means they don't need 4 cores. Apple is focusing on the digital lifestyle and this means they want to sell a customer hardware that will take care of this emerging market, like live streaming video rentals to their large screened LCD TV. I think the Mac Pro is the ever-expanding machine but look for huge price differences in its configs. An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon? All we do know is that Apple wants to rule the digital livingroom and probably is not concerned with bragging rights. But the obvious is true, there are some big steps ahead in processing power.
mKTank
Dec 31, 01:57 AM
Yes, this sticky obtrusive and uninstallable piece of junk that constantly plagues people in the PC world (not to mention it radically slows your machine down. I recently installed Flash player on the PC side and without my permission McAffe was installed....ARGGGHH. Now they want to infect the Mac world....PLEASE NO!
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
kainjow
Oct 12, 12:23 PM
Oh Bono...
http://www.u2station.com/images/images/oprah_06.jpg
http://www.u2station.com/images/images/oprah_06.jpg
dbales
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
Early April Fools...nice!
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
HiRez
Sep 19, 03:45 PM
Here's the things I need to see before I even get into this whole dowloading movies thing:
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
douglasgb
Apr 11, 10:10 AM
Well, thank you, I've heard of Home Sharing. I use it myself on my desktop and laptop. I was referring to an one-click streaming solution like Airtunes. More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system" than "go to preferences, enable sharing; now wait while I browse your shared library".
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
I second this. I already have an AppleTV hooked up to our main A/V center, plus several AEs connected to self-contained CD radios in our kitchen, bedroom, etc. What's missing is the client I can run on my Mac that advertises it as another AirPlay remote speaker so iTunes running on the server in the basement can stream to it. Would be great if it included the ability to control iTunes like the iOS Remote App does.
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
I second this. I already have an AppleTV hooked up to our main A/V center, plus several AEs connected to self-contained CD radios in our kitchen, bedroom, etc. What's missing is the client I can run on my Mac that advertises it as another AirPlay remote speaker so iTunes running on the server in the basement can stream to it. Would be great if it included the ability to control iTunes like the iOS Remote App does.
