Mal67
Mar 23, 09:11 AM
Come on Mac Mini update; well overdue for a refresh. That Core 2 Duo is keeping me from buying.
Waiting for this one too! Hurry up Apple.
Waiting for this one too! Hurry up Apple.
brepublican
Sep 19, 03:54 PM
If it destroys their whole business model, then it is not dumb to not "try it out".
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
foo10
Jul 17, 09:31 AM
I hope well have a Core 2 Duo on a MBP soon. I've been thinking of selling my 20" G5 iMac and buying a 17" MBP.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:37 AM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Lollypop
Aug 29, 01:08 AM
The current PB look has been around since 2001. I think the alumin look is starting to look soooo 2000. Were heading toward time to move on with a new chip and a new look.
I still like the look of the PB, a few refinements would be welcome... mag latch, firewire 800 on the 15inch model. I dont think apple will do a complete redesign for a "small" upgrade like the C2D, but they can take the chance to polish their offerings a bit more.
I still like the look of the PB, a few refinements would be welcome... mag latch, firewire 800 on the 15inch model. I dont think apple will do a complete redesign for a "small" upgrade like the C2D, but they can take the chance to polish their offerings a bit more.
Machead III
Aug 31, 01:18 PM
Let's face it, many people are already regularly downloading movies by nefarious means, and are perfectly happy waiting a couple of days to obtain a ~700mb file over the course of a few days.
All Apple need to do is apply the same logic as they did to music, to movies. The situation is identical. People will pay for faster download times, previews, wider selections and peace of mind. You could easily get a movie into a good-enough-quality video file of around 800mb-1gb - sure, not VIDEO_TS quality, which is why they'd have to be a bit cheaper than retail DVDs. But it'd work, I know as a film maniac I'd use it pretty regularly.
It may rely on a few extra things though. Let's say, a video iPod with a big capacity, maybe a new video file format (.avi is perfect but Apple obviously don't dig it) and IT HAS TO BE SAID bigger godamn hard drives in Apple portables.
Even with a video iPod, a Movie Store is going to interest lappy users perhaps most of all, and the current 60gb standards in MacBook just doesn't cut it for ****.
All Apple need to do is apply the same logic as they did to music, to movies. The situation is identical. People will pay for faster download times, previews, wider selections and peace of mind. You could easily get a movie into a good-enough-quality video file of around 800mb-1gb - sure, not VIDEO_TS quality, which is why they'd have to be a bit cheaper than retail DVDs. But it'd work, I know as a film maniac I'd use it pretty regularly.
It may rely on a few extra things though. Let's say, a video iPod with a big capacity, maybe a new video file format (.avi is perfect but Apple obviously don't dig it) and IT HAS TO BE SAID bigger godamn hard drives in Apple portables.
Even with a video iPod, a Movie Store is going to interest lappy users perhaps most of all, and the current 60gb standards in MacBook just doesn't cut it for ****.
Apple Shmapple
Sep 12, 04:59 PM
At these new lower price points that reads pretty UN-educated to me.
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
richdun
Oct 12, 03:22 PM
I think we can call this confirmed. The Chicago Tribune has a pic of Bono and Oprah using the red Nano on the front page of their website - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
jacob1201
Sep 12, 04:17 PM
will search and quick scroll be in my ipod's next update?
I've updated the software... games work, quick scroll works... but no search :(... unless I'm just blind and am missing something. Seems like it should be there, since everything else seems to be, right? Any thoughts?
I've updated the software... games work, quick scroll works... but no search :(... unless I'm just blind and am missing something. Seems like it should be there, since everything else seems to be, right? Any thoughts?
torbjoern
Apr 25, 01:31 AM
Is the story even plausible?
http://tapatalk.com/mu/2e0fe4ce-153e-aadb.jpg
http://tapatalk.com/mu/2e0fe4ce-153e-aadb.jpg
DJTJ
Apr 22, 11:49 AM
Why would you think that? The Intel IGP can drive the same resolution on the 15" just fine.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
weg
Aug 28, 01:03 PM
not that it really matters. but they stole apples thunder.
and since steve compared osx to windows and the mac pro to dell and made lot's of fun about both they'd better stay on top of the game.
I think that Apple shouldn't enter that race.. their products are distinguished by other features than mere processing power (as soon as this changes: goodbye Apple), and coming out with new models every few months will probably just piss off Apple customers (so far, it's pretty easy to know ALL current laptop models that Apple offers - can you say that for Dell, too?).
and since steve compared osx to windows and the mac pro to dell and made lot's of fun about both they'd better stay on top of the game.
I think that Apple shouldn't enter that race.. their products are distinguished by other features than mere processing power (as soon as this changes: goodbye Apple), and coming out with new models every few months will probably just piss off Apple customers (so far, it's pretty easy to know ALL current laptop models that Apple offers - can you say that for Dell, too?).
emaja
Apr 22, 01:32 PM
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
pondosinatra
Mar 23, 08:52 AM
Well unless a non-glossy screen is an option I won't be getting one.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
jholzner
Sep 16, 02:03 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
primalman
Aug 23, 09:02 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.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
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.
Yes, this is the reality. It was a wise business move, thinking long-term. Someone said it earlier, but Apple plays good chess, this is why they have over $8 billion in the bank.
The quote above should have been the last post.
VPrime
Apr 30, 05:02 PM
The bottleneck is internet speed. Until the world has South Korean-esque internet speeds, physical media isn't going anywhere.
Well he was talking about things happening in the Future. 2016 is a long time from now especially in the tech world. Quite possible for internet speeds to catch up.
What kind of media do you expect that "cloud" to store data with? Your statement delves into the realm of privacy concern.
Cloud storage already exists. Look at dropbox, amazon, wuala, Carbonite. Lots of stuff which can handle user files and media already. Again, the person I quoted was talking about things in 2016, so quite possible for things to change by then.
Also look at services like Netflix and itunes. They seem to be handling "cloud" based streaming just fine. Even right now in 2011 you can watch an HD movie by just streaming it to your device rather than using a physical disk. Who knows what can happen in 5 years in the tech industry.
Well he was talking about things happening in the Future. 2016 is a long time from now especially in the tech world. Quite possible for internet speeds to catch up.
What kind of media do you expect that "cloud" to store data with? Your statement delves into the realm of privacy concern.
Cloud storage already exists. Look at dropbox, amazon, wuala, Carbonite. Lots of stuff which can handle user files and media already. Again, the person I quoted was talking about things in 2016, so quite possible for things to change by then.
Also look at services like Netflix and itunes. They seem to be handling "cloud" based streaming just fine. Even right now in 2011 you can watch an HD movie by just streaming it to your device rather than using a physical disk. Who knows what can happen in 5 years in the tech industry.
RacerX
Aug 23, 08:53 PM
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1.Well, looking at the rough numbers, this settlement has Apple paying about $1.70 for every iPod ever sold.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 10:47 PM
The Beatles did this to Apple, oh wait, they had Apple Records and the Apple logo for over 5 years before Apple Computer existed. But I'm sure that is overlooked.
As I mentioned in the other thread, you might actually want to take a look at the Apple Records logo before you make silly arguments that the Apple Computer logo is a copy.
And as cmaier clearly explained to you, this is a different scenario entirely as they were in two completely different industries at that time.
Oh, and what do the Beatles have to do with partnering technology companies turning around and stabbing their partner in the back? Nothing.
As I mentioned in the other thread, you might actually want to take a look at the Apple Records logo before you make silly arguments that the Apple Computer logo is a copy.
And as cmaier clearly explained to you, this is a different scenario entirely as they were in two completely different industries at that time.
Oh, and what do the Beatles have to do with partnering technology companies turning around and stabbing their partner in the back? Nothing.
MooVitZ
Sep 26, 08:44 PM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
Quark
Oct 27, 04:07 PM
They should be kicked out of every place all the time. They are almost as bad as the Sierra Club. Liars, cheats and thieves -- they lie about everything, trick you into giving them money for a cause and spend the money on their ridiculous liberal agendas based on flat out falsehoods and lies.
I love the environment and volunteer twice a month for environmental restoration and preservation projects. But I can't stand the scare tactics of these types of groups that use junk science and fear to steal your money and make themselves rich and powerful.
Quark
I love the environment and volunteer twice a month for environmental restoration and preservation projects. But I can't stand the scare tactics of these types of groups that use junk science and fear to steal your money and make themselves rich and powerful.
Quark
tbobmccoy
Apr 14, 07:03 PM
They wouldn't have to add more hardware. USB3.0 is backwards compatible with 2.0. They would only have to disable 3.0 protocols somehow or artificially speed limit it to 2.0 speeds. I wouldn't put it past them. I KNOW if they got Blu-Ray drives somehow included with their hardware (i.e. only thing available), they would STILL not support it except in DVD/CD mode. Apple will do what they think is best for them NO MATTER WHAT. They don't give a flying rat's hind end about what the consumer wants. Steve thinks he knows better than anyone and he has a whole army of groupies telling him he's right so how on earth could he ever imagine otherwise?
I think this is a bit paranoid. Blu-ray just isn't that great of a tech for Apple to justify the increased cost of adding it to the MacBook Pro. Yes, there is some bias due to their DLC, but I doubt that's the ONLY reason blu-ray isn't available. Plus, I'd rather go without a drive period on my next MacBook. Give me the space savings, extra battery life, etc and let me have a thunderbolt drive, since I never use the drive outside of... installing software, and even that's rare these days.
I think this is a bit paranoid. Blu-ray just isn't that great of a tech for Apple to justify the increased cost of adding it to the MacBook Pro. Yes, there is some bias due to their DLC, but I doubt that's the ONLY reason blu-ray isn't available. Plus, I'd rather go without a drive period on my next MacBook. Give me the space savings, extra battery life, etc and let me have a thunderbolt drive, since I never use the drive outside of... installing software, and even that's rare these days.
mwayne85
Apr 25, 01:19 PM
I think it's almost a given that they'll do away with the superdrive. There's no need for it. And if they move to flash storage, they could make it a bit thinner and lighter. It would be like a Macbook air, but with powerful mobile processors.
What do you mean, "you people"
ROFL
What do you mean, "you people"
ROFL
W1MRK
Apr 16, 06:01 PM
Glad to see they are supporting both
0 comments:
Post a Comment