ghostlines
Mar 23, 04:29 PM
Pull these apps? That's a little drastic if you can use the app to avoid DUI checks you're quite good enough to drive I "think". Or they could give the developers the option to just take out that feature and leave the rest.
stewacide
Sep 27, 12:35 AM
If I had to guess as to why Apple would go with an exclusive provider to start, I would say so as to play hardball with the network providers.
Apple doesn't want to gum their pretty phones up with provider ick-ware like other manufacturers have to (just like it didn't want to e.g. 'Intel Inside' its pretty boxes), so they make a deal whereas in exchange for initial exclusivity Cingular agrees to relent control over the phones software and services (so that it say interfaces with the iTunes store for music and tones not Cingular's store: although I'm sure the service provider will charge the full market rate for data transfer). Then when the iPhone becomes a huge hit the other providers won't have any choice if they want to get on board as well.
I don't see why Apple would start a virtual operator, because they have no interest in getting into the service provider game. They can get what they really want - an opt-out of the cruddy operator system in the US especially - through market weight alone.
Apple doesn't want to gum their pretty phones up with provider ick-ware like other manufacturers have to (just like it didn't want to e.g. 'Intel Inside' its pretty boxes), so they make a deal whereas in exchange for initial exclusivity Cingular agrees to relent control over the phones software and services (so that it say interfaces with the iTunes store for music and tones not Cingular's store: although I'm sure the service provider will charge the full market rate for data transfer). Then when the iPhone becomes a huge hit the other providers won't have any choice if they want to get on board as well.
I don't see why Apple would start a virtual operator, because they have no interest in getting into the service provider game. They can get what they really want - an opt-out of the cruddy operator system in the US especially - through market weight alone.
BornAgainMac
Sep 5, 01:20 PM
Do you know a Tivo is a computer? It has a microprocessor and runs Linux. However, they don't try to make it a computer. That is why their idea has caught on.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.
spicyapple
Sep 14, 08:04 AM
Most likely. I'm not a betting person, but Apple usually rolls out new pro machines during these types of events and what better way to show off the MBPs running C2D than a demonstration of Aperture 2.0. :)
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:41 PM
I've heard about clovertown coming all along and have put off buying a Mac Pro. I'd much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work I do.Of course almost everyone here knows I'm with you. I was surprised that the Mac Pro would require such expensive RAM which really puts me off. So I'm hoping that the popularity of Mac Pro RAM will drive down RAM cost to us by the time the Clovertown Mac Pro ships.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
afd
Apr 11, 07:30 AM
Some people have already mentioned AirFoil for audio, and there's AirView for video.
Airfoil still needs the Airfoil installed on your computer to work, it won't run with just the iOS apps. I think pika2000 is asking about iOS apps that emulate an airport express, so that you could send the same audio to every device in your house.
Airfoil still needs the Airfoil installed on your computer to work, it won't run with just the iOS apps. I think pika2000 is asking about iOS apps that emulate an airport express, so that you could send the same audio to every device in your house.
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
balamw
Aug 23, 11:05 PM
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
You forgot:
0. Once issued, even the most bogus patent has the presumption of validity.
I look forward to the recent IBM proposals to create a Wiki for reviewing patents before they issue. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm
B
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
You forgot:
0. Once issued, even the most bogus patent has the presumption of validity.
I look forward to the recent IBM proposals to create a Wiki for reviewing patents before they issue. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm
B
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:30 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.
ever heard of the pandora app??
--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.
ever heard of the pandora app??
turbo79
Nov 16, 07:29 AM
When the iPhone 3G was first released, I rushed out and bought one. A year down the line, I gave it to a family member and switched to a Blackberry Bold.
I absolutely love the thoughtful design that goes into all Apple products, I own an Apple desktop, an Apple laptop, an Apple iPod and various other Apple paraphernalia. However, I didn't gel with the crippled iPhone and am much happier with my Blackberry.
It has 75% of the fun features of the iPhone and a slew of others that make it a smarter choice - background apps, Google Latitude running all the time, emails arriving instantly, uncapped international data roaming for �20 extra a month on o2 amongst many others - and being able to type an entire email whilst you walk!
Due to RIM not having a stranglehold over the device's application pool (unlike Apple), there are a lot of fugly applications available, but also a lot of great ones. If you're starting out with the Blackberry, I highly recommend Ubertwitter, BeWeather, Google Sync, Facebook and the Flickr Uploader as high quality apps.
I absolutely love the thoughtful design that goes into all Apple products, I own an Apple desktop, an Apple laptop, an Apple iPod and various other Apple paraphernalia. However, I didn't gel with the crippled iPhone and am much happier with my Blackberry.
It has 75% of the fun features of the iPhone and a slew of others that make it a smarter choice - background apps, Google Latitude running all the time, emails arriving instantly, uncapped international data roaming for �20 extra a month on o2 amongst many others - and being able to type an entire email whilst you walk!
Due to RIM not having a stranglehold over the device's application pool (unlike Apple), there are a lot of fugly applications available, but also a lot of great ones. If you're starting out with the Blackberry, I highly recommend Ubertwitter, BeWeather, Google Sync, Facebook and the Flickr Uploader as high quality apps.
Bertmg
May 4, 11:00 AM
No Blue Ray, no 30 inch monitors, no new OSX (yet), Bootcamp still requires re-start, no new included software like Pages, and prices did not come down... Waited several years to replace my TI laptop and my 30 inch external monitor (yup I still use them and they work really good).
Very, very disappointing. :(:(:(:mad:
Very, very disappointing. :(:(:(:mad:
iLucas
Apr 30, 01:10 PM
Finally!
jackvalko
Apr 4, 11:46 AM
Wow, I heard the ipad2 was a killer product.
stew278
Sep 13, 10:44 PM
looks pretty lame. (what's been mocked up)
this rumored phone better have some great features most haven't thought of to make it a real seller. form factors like that alone won't sell much.
this rumored phone better have some great features most haven't thought of to make it a real seller. form factors like that alone won't sell much.
Kalach
Apr 25, 06:24 PM
I'm so glad that I didn't upgrade! :D
Meandmunch
Apr 25, 07:08 PM
Other than shaving a few millimeters of the case, a few grams of weight what amount of change isn't incremental at this point?
tatonka
Mar 24, 09:01 AM
I don't get peoples fascination with thunderbolt. Besides that it is new, it is pretty much useless right now. I agree that it is a cool port once they come out with the suitable accessories .. but til then, I couldn't care less.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 02:55 PM
Have you ever actually watched Netflix or Hulu on a iPhone or iPad over 3G? It totally sucks - not even close to what it looks like when stored locally, especially on the iPad.
Tony
my point is that they stream from a location and aren't stored locally....
they stream fine for me.
Tony
my point is that they stream from a location and aren't stored locally....
they stream fine for me.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 11:33 AM
Wanna bet that Napa64 is 100% identical to ordinary Napa, apart from the fact that the CPU is Merom, instead of Yonah? Since Napa is a platform, just chaning the CPU to something else would mean that the platform has been refreshed.I'm a little skeptical about Napa64 as well. I did read the previous links and articles on it. Why make Merom backwards compatible with Yonah?
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
toddybody
Apr 30, 08:06 PM
not as cpu/gpu demanding
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
Reacent Post
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
Sodner
Apr 19, 12:54 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
timmillwood
Sep 10, 10:46 AM
can they fit one of these into a MBP?
macjonny1
Apr 25, 03:23 PM
In the market for a 17" to replace my 2007 version. Not interested in getting rid of the optical drive as I still use it to watch DVDs on it (have Netflix and the streaming content is far from being complete). The current one seems to have everything that I'm looking for. I'd like a SSD but they are just too much $$$ now.
Hunts121
Jul 14, 09:56 AM
Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
0 comments:
Post a Comment