bloodycape
Sep 12, 06:21 PM
Now lets see a 30gig ipod that does video decently, with some sorta of gapless playback or a 8gig nano for the same price? Hmm hard choice. Yeah right gapless(even it is software based?) and large space wins all the time. Now if they add more of a eq option and built in fm(with recording) I would for sure get one.
Now can someone confirm if gapless is true gapless or software based? I know with rockbox on the ipod you get true hardware based gapless but with this it is not clear.
Another question how is battery of video improved but not audio? And I am under the impression a brighter screen means worse battery life so in turn it could mean under real life situations video playback is more like 2.5-3 hours?
Now can someone confirm if gapless is true gapless or software based? I know with rockbox on the ipod you get true hardware based gapless but with this it is not clear.
Another question how is battery of video improved but not audio? And I am under the impression a brighter screen means worse battery life so in turn it could mean under real life situations video playback is more like 2.5-3 hours?
supermacdesign
Sep 6, 12:04 AM
Don't forget the 42" HD monitor Apple will drop at the event. What else did you think Apple would let you watch a movie on? (beside your iPod of course)
Sodner
Apr 20, 10:51 AM
Eh. Not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned. It's a tracking file on my phone copied to my computer. I have plenty more to worry about like bank or CC info then my exact location at a given moment.
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek:
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek:
jholzner
Aug 24, 08:20 AM
may be Creative could use this precedence to sue Microsoft and other competitors over their UI and make them pay for licenses too.
There's not real precedence since Apple settled. If it had gone to court and Apple lost, then there would be a precedence.
There's not real precedence since Apple settled. If it had gone to court and Apple lost, then there would be a precedence.
manu chao
Apr 11, 09:01 AM
How? Not unless I buy airfoil?
It is $25, not the end of the world. And it seems you also have to buy each iOS device you want to stream to, they do not come free with a new Mac.
It is $25, not the end of the world. And it seems you also have to buy each iOS device you want to stream to, they do not come free with a new Mac.
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.
NT1440
Apr 19, 10:56 PM
Keep listening to corporate run media which lies and doesn't tell the whole story.. my friend, unemployment and the economy aren't getting any better.. in fact, very soon it will collapse.. as inflation starts to settle in.. and if you wanna know the truth, look at BBC and other non-corporate run media for the truth. I know in my home state its like 7.9 percent and most of the jobs are health care and IT - no industrial, no customer service, nothing else.
While I agree with not listening to corporate run media, you are severely misguided if you believe the BBC is quality journalism.
Watch John Pilgers "The war you don't see" to see just how they think they should report what world leaders say. It's shocking.
While I agree with not listening to corporate run media, you are severely misguided if you believe the BBC is quality journalism.
Watch John Pilgers "The war you don't see" to see just how they think they should report what world leaders say. It's shocking.
karsten
Apr 20, 09:57 AM
i'm tired of companies taking our privacy so lightly. makes a consumer feel like a dumb piece of meat. i hope someone files a lawsuit over this. any sneaky tactics like this should be outright banned by the government. maybe once we get some politicians of a younger generation in there who are more aware of these issues they will actually do something to protect the consumer from greedy and arrogant corporations. i hope but i'm not sure i will ever see this dream realized the way government currently lets companies run rampant.
chibianh
Aug 23, 04:37 PM
Whoa..
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
MattInOz
Mar 22, 08:21 PM
More surprising than this rumor is the fact that it's the first actual MAC rumor (beyond "we've found that the Early 2011 MacBook Pros have quirks" posts) in weeks. None of that is surprising though. I wonder if there will be any surprises with this refresh? I'm guessing no Blu-Ray, which means I'm not buying one. Though I'm still curious as to what'll be under the hood.
Ummm... you do realize that rumour volume doesn't equate to Apple's interest levels or efforts in any particular product. They are almost entirely driven by web traffic and ad views numbers. If Mac News/Rumours generated the sort of traffic that iDevice rumours did I'm sure we would see the same level of "Making @^#^ up" oops sorry, I'm mean In depth analysis about the Mac as we see about iDevices.
Ummm... you do realize that rumour volume doesn't equate to Apple's interest levels or efforts in any particular product. They are almost entirely driven by web traffic and ad views numbers. If Mac News/Rumours generated the sort of traffic that iDevice rumours did I'm sure we would see the same level of "Making @^#^ up" oops sorry, I'm mean In depth analysis about the Mac as we see about iDevices.
cardude280
May 3, 11:33 AM
As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
BillyBobBongo
Apr 20, 09:54 AM
Wonder how long this item will remain here...the one on Engadget managed about 7 minutes. ;)
jessica.
Apr 25, 08:49 AM
Why do I feel like you are one of the people who purposely try to slow people down because you need to be on some higher moral ground and make sure the entire world does the speed you believe is safe?Higher moral ground? Read your posts ... pot meet kettle. :rolleyes:
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.I believe it is you who believes he holds some higher moral ground here. I believe that it is you who feels the need to punish someone. Everything you say about her and what she did to you is exactly what you're doing to her. Honking, flashing your lights, tailgating, and break checking her is punishing her for traveling at a safe speed. Just because you're a child in a car that is too much for you to handle and too expensive for a punk 16 year old doesn't make you a ****ing law. You're going 90, I am glad she didn't move and glad that it has you so worked up that you came here to cry about it.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-DonParenting, no license required ... clearly. I think I'll keep an eye on the news in your area so I can see just when and how you kill yourself or worse yet (and much worse yet) someone else because of your awesome driving skills.
I personally love how I get the bad rap, when the woman was the one going under the speed limit and attempted to breakcheck me first. She got what was coming to her. Had she just had some common courtesy and moved over, nothing would of happened. Instead she decided that she had to play traffic cop.
You people are all laughable.
-DonYou're 16 going 20 mph over the speed limit. You are not a COMPLETELY safe driver, not even a little. Your mother supposedly allowing you to do this is equally disgusting. The driver was likely not trying to enforce the speed limit. Just because you're speeding and people are getting out of your way, doesn't mean that her unwillingness to let you by is her way of enforcing anything. Newsflash, just because you're doing 90 in a 70 doesn't mean people HAVE to move. Most move because they fear for their own lives. I also call BS, I bet she wasn't doing 65. You're no more a safe driver than you are honest. Your first post you already concluded that you would have lied about some animal in the road. Doing 90, chances are you wouldn't even see the animal. You are laughable at best. It is not common courtsey to move out of the way of some guy honking, tailgating, and flashing his brights at you. You speak of courtsey and yet you have none.
When someone like you comes knocking on my ass you get to stay behind me while I chill on cruise control. Keep in mind, all those people who moved are witnesses. Should something have happened, at least one would be there. The so-called law and your so-called awesome family member who can supposedly get you out of all of this are powerless when it comes to you touching metal. Rear-ending someone may be 100% the fault of the person behind you until a witness comes forward and explains how the accident came to be. Animal or not, you're screwed.
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.I believe it is you who believes he holds some higher moral ground here. I believe that it is you who feels the need to punish someone. Everything you say about her and what she did to you is exactly what you're doing to her. Honking, flashing your lights, tailgating, and break checking her is punishing her for traveling at a safe speed. Just because you're a child in a car that is too much for you to handle and too expensive for a punk 16 year old doesn't make you a ****ing law. You're going 90, I am glad she didn't move and glad that it has you so worked up that you came here to cry about it.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-DonParenting, no license required ... clearly. I think I'll keep an eye on the news in your area so I can see just when and how you kill yourself or worse yet (and much worse yet) someone else because of your awesome driving skills.
I personally love how I get the bad rap, when the woman was the one going under the speed limit and attempted to breakcheck me first. She got what was coming to her. Had she just had some common courtesy and moved over, nothing would of happened. Instead she decided that she had to play traffic cop.
You people are all laughable.
-DonYou're 16 going 20 mph over the speed limit. You are not a COMPLETELY safe driver, not even a little. Your mother supposedly allowing you to do this is equally disgusting. The driver was likely not trying to enforce the speed limit. Just because you're speeding and people are getting out of your way, doesn't mean that her unwillingness to let you by is her way of enforcing anything. Newsflash, just because you're doing 90 in a 70 doesn't mean people HAVE to move. Most move because they fear for their own lives. I also call BS, I bet she wasn't doing 65. You're no more a safe driver than you are honest. Your first post you already concluded that you would have lied about some animal in the road. Doing 90, chances are you wouldn't even see the animal. You are laughable at best. It is not common courtsey to move out of the way of some guy honking, tailgating, and flashing his brights at you. You speak of courtsey and yet you have none.
When someone like you comes knocking on my ass you get to stay behind me while I chill on cruise control. Keep in mind, all those people who moved are witnesses. Should something have happened, at least one would be there. The so-called law and your so-called awesome family member who can supposedly get you out of all of this are powerless when it comes to you touching metal. Rear-ending someone may be 100% the fault of the person behind you until a witness comes forward and explains how the accident came to be. Animal or not, you're screwed.
Bibulous
Sep 13, 09:04 PM
I believe it after how they treated Moto, and it makes sense they would announce it after the new ipods. Hope it has 4GB storage at least.
aohus
Apr 19, 12:28 PM
Apple should just buy out Samsung!
Simplistic, I know.
/facepalm
Samsung is a 'chaebol' corporation, a conglomerate. The company is HUGE. It would be the equivalent of Apple/Microsoft/Blackberry combined + TSMC/Global Foundries + Shipbuilding + Property Real Estate + Electronics, etc. Not only that but Apple gets their A4/A5 chips + flash memory manufactured at Samsung fab plants.
This is the GUI wars all over again... Last time Apple sued Microsoft for copying their GUI desktop to make Windows....
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
they didn't invent the GUI? This doesn't look like a desktop to you?
http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/2009/03/xerox-8010-star.gif
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/graphics/xerox_star.jpg
Sure does to me.
Simplistic, I know.
/facepalm
Samsung is a 'chaebol' corporation, a conglomerate. The company is HUGE. It would be the equivalent of Apple/Microsoft/Blackberry combined + TSMC/Global Foundries + Shipbuilding + Property Real Estate + Electronics, etc. Not only that but Apple gets their A4/A5 chips + flash memory manufactured at Samsung fab plants.
This is the GUI wars all over again... Last time Apple sued Microsoft for copying their GUI desktop to make Windows....
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
they didn't invent the GUI? This doesn't look like a desktop to you?
http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/2009/03/xerox-8010-star.gif
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/graphics/xerox_star.jpg
Sure does to me.
kukito
Oct 27, 05:19 PM
I was thinking of buying an iPod Shuffle for my niece for Xmas but she'll be getting something else instead. My MacBook purchase is on hold as well.
sully677
May 1, 12:11 AM
Any news about a 24in option?
balamw
Aug 24, 09:26 AM
Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil.
Even though the SCO case is not a patent dispute, it's a good example of how a company with pending legal disputes with potentially big outcomes can always find sources to finance their lawsuits.
B
Even though the SCO case is not a patent dispute, it's a good example of how a company with pending legal disputes with potentially big outcomes can always find sources to finance their lawsuits.
B
MacRumors
Oct 12, 12:17 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
An anonymous source claims that U2's Bono will announce a RED (http://www.joinred.com/) version of Apple's 4 GB iPod tomorrow during his appearance on Oprah. The show was apparently taped today in Chicago, and Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/) has the following to say about tomorrow's show:
Get "red"-y! It's something so huge, it took Opray, Bono and a convertible to make it happen! Plus, Penelope Cruz and Kanye West are in on it! An extraordinary launch! [...] Chicago goes "red" today and this is just the beginning!
The show was apparently taped today, and will be aired tomorrow, October 13th. Rumors of a RED iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060131123048.shtml) have been circulating since January. According to our source, the RED iPod would be priced similarly to current 4 GB models at $199, with $10 (5%) of each sale going to The Global Fund to help women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa, where some countries have over 30% of the population affected by the disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic#Sub-Saharan_Africa).
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/RED_iPod_Nano_Tomorrow)
An anonymous source claims that U2's Bono will announce a RED (http://www.joinred.com/) version of Apple's 4 GB iPod tomorrow during his appearance on Oprah. The show was apparently taped today in Chicago, and Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/) has the following to say about tomorrow's show:
Get "red"-y! It's something so huge, it took Opray, Bono and a convertible to make it happen! Plus, Penelope Cruz and Kanye West are in on it! An extraordinary launch! [...] Chicago goes "red" today and this is just the beginning!
The show was apparently taped today, and will be aired tomorrow, October 13th. Rumors of a RED iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060131123048.shtml) have been circulating since January. According to our source, the RED iPod would be priced similarly to current 4 GB models at $199, with $10 (5%) of each sale going to The Global Fund to help women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa, where some countries have over 30% of the population affected by the disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic#Sub-Saharan_Africa).
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/RED_iPod_Nano_Tomorrow)
Jedi128
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
It's so nice not to have to be on any ****ing "contract". (Sorry, I just really hate the state of the cellphone market in the USA.)
Amen to that. I have T-Mobile now with pay as you go...... I don't like getting raped monthly by cell phone providers.
But, BTW..... where the **** is my Macbook Pro with Merom? Its Tuesday...what the **** is going on........?
Amen to that. I have T-Mobile now with pay as you go...... I don't like getting raped monthly by cell phone providers.
But, BTW..... where the **** is my Macbook Pro with Merom? Its Tuesday...what the **** is going on........?
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:58 PM
See the roll eyes after his post, I think he was being sarcastic.
No, I truly hate that place.. and all it stands for.
No, I truly hate that place.. and all it stands for.
hob
Aug 31, 07:37 PM
So does anyone know where in London it will be shown, except BBC TV centre by invite only?
Better yet, how do I get an invite?!
Better yet, how do I get an invite?!
aafuss1
Aug 31, 10:30 PM
Different regions, different distributors and laws.
Examples:
Lost-7 in Australia
Invader ZIM-Nickelodeon UK, in the UK, Nickelodeon Australia (XYZ Networks/Nickelodeon Australia own it here)
Examples:
Lost-7 in Australia
Invader ZIM-Nickelodeon UK, in the UK, Nickelodeon Australia (XYZ Networks/Nickelodeon Australia own it here)
milo
Sep 12, 02:51 PM
We waited 334 days for this? That is how long we went without an iPod update, by far the longest gap in updates, and all we get is larger storage capacity and a few new games?
In the past 2 quarters, for the first time since Apple introduced the iPod, iPod sales have declined. Last quarter, Apple sold just over 8 million iPods, down from a peak of over 14 million 2 quarters ago. The reason is because people bought new iPods, and there was no reason to replace them because it took Apple so long to update the models. Now, after all of the wait (nearly a year) and speculation about 16x9 video iPods, touch-screen controls, wireless capabilities, etc., I think this update will go mostly unnoticed to consumers and iPod sales will continue to fall. Apple needs to drastically change and improve iPod offerings if it wants to maintain its market advantage and keep the iPod fashionable.
The fact you seem to miss is that the Nano is by far the biggest selling iPod. And they did a pretty nice update to it, what more would you want in that model? They definitely will update the "big" ipod at some point, but there are some MAJOR technological hurdles to overcome, especially battery life for video and the no-touch interface. We'd all love to see it, but apple really needs to take their time and get it right if it's truly going to be groundbreaking.
iPod w/video sales probably won't do much (except for the price drop, which is pretty nice), but nanos and shuffles should sell like mad. I'd be shocked if iPod sales don't spike back up again.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
I thought updates were now going to be handled by iTunes. Maybe the updates haven't been made available to it online yet. After all, iTunes and QT haven't showed up in software update either.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
There definitely are new video features, although you'll have to see for yourself if your specific complaints are addressed.
In the past 2 quarters, for the first time since Apple introduced the iPod, iPod sales have declined. Last quarter, Apple sold just over 8 million iPods, down from a peak of over 14 million 2 quarters ago. The reason is because people bought new iPods, and there was no reason to replace them because it took Apple so long to update the models. Now, after all of the wait (nearly a year) and speculation about 16x9 video iPods, touch-screen controls, wireless capabilities, etc., I think this update will go mostly unnoticed to consumers and iPod sales will continue to fall. Apple needs to drastically change and improve iPod offerings if it wants to maintain its market advantage and keep the iPod fashionable.
The fact you seem to miss is that the Nano is by far the biggest selling iPod. And they did a pretty nice update to it, what more would you want in that model? They definitely will update the "big" ipod at some point, but there are some MAJOR technological hurdles to overcome, especially battery life for video and the no-touch interface. We'd all love to see it, but apple really needs to take their time and get it right if it's truly going to be groundbreaking.
iPod w/video sales probably won't do much (except for the price drop, which is pretty nice), but nanos and shuffles should sell like mad. I'd be shocked if iPod sales don't spike back up again.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
I thought updates were now going to be handled by iTunes. Maybe the updates haven't been made available to it online yet. After all, iTunes and QT haven't showed up in software update either.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
There definitely are new video features, although you'll have to see for yourself if your specific complaints are addressed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment