jafd
Apr 25, 03:02 PM
Those having glossy screens sure will need an automated screen wiper to go with their new laptops. They've got no touch screens and we take care to not touch them, but eventually the screens get dusted and/or fingerprinted all over.
Look at this iPad. Isn't it disgusting?
http://www.tema.ru/jjj/apple-2.jpg
Sure it's not how it looks in ads. It's a real thing in real use.
I also expect a screen wiper in iPad 3, by the way. Screw the liquid metal and gimme the ol' good wiper, please. Or make it matte/Pixel Qi, for heaven's sake.
Look at this iPad. Isn't it disgusting?
http://www.tema.ru/jjj/apple-2.jpg
Sure it's not how it looks in ads. It's a real thing in real use.
I also expect a screen wiper in iPad 3, by the way. Screw the liquid metal and gimme the ol' good wiper, please. Or make it matte/Pixel Qi, for heaven's sake.
appleguy123
Apr 25, 01:09 PM
What about the screen? Are they finally moving to 16:9 screens?
I certainly hope not!
I certainly hope not!
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 02:11 PM
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
aristobrat
Sep 5, 11:38 AM
Hopefully it's not the Extreme that gets the update because my cable modem is nowhere near my TV. ;)
Misplaced Mage
Sep 27, 07:17 PM
What I'm hoping for is that Apple uses the metallic finish of its nanos. My Sony Ericsson has a metallic blue finish but is actually made of plastic. It would be sweet to have a real metal phone. I predict Apple will launch in a single metallic color (the nano black or silver), and then within a year or less provide all the nano colors.A partially metal housing is certainly possible, but if a phone has an internal antenna there has to be a plastic "window" in the housing that the antenna can operate through.
Metal housings are a pain for cell phone RF engineers because they have a nasty tendency to interfere with the radiativity (the "shape" of the radio emissions of the antenna). You generally can't use the housing itself as an antenna because it's difficult to get a uniform impedance match due to all the different ways people hold a phone, variations in skin conduction (not to mention SAR issues...), resting surfaces like metal tabletops, etc. The metal usually can't be left "floating," i.e., electrically isolated from the rest of the phone--though there are exceptions--and usually needs to be connected to the common phone ground to give it fixed RF characteristics, resulting in things like the spring fingers you sometimes see inside a phone that touch off on a point of a metal battery door.
The RAZR is an excellent example of this. The bulk of the phone housing is metal, but there are numerous internal grounding contacts for the housing, and the area around the antennas is plastic (the "chin" below the keyboard).
Metal housings are a pain for cell phone RF engineers because they have a nasty tendency to interfere with the radiativity (the "shape" of the radio emissions of the antenna). You generally can't use the housing itself as an antenna because it's difficult to get a uniform impedance match due to all the different ways people hold a phone, variations in skin conduction (not to mention SAR issues...), resting surfaces like metal tabletops, etc. The metal usually can't be left "floating," i.e., electrically isolated from the rest of the phone--though there are exceptions--and usually needs to be connected to the common phone ground to give it fixed RF characteristics, resulting in things like the spring fingers you sometimes see inside a phone that touch off on a point of a metal battery door.
The RAZR is an excellent example of this. The bulk of the phone housing is metal, but there are numerous internal grounding contacts for the housing, and the area around the antennas is plastic (the "chin" below the keyboard).
dondark
Sep 14, 01:49 AM
I hope iPhone will have a good sync with the Mac. If i am only looking for a pretty cell phone, there are a lot in the japanese market.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 11:00 AM
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
KnightWRX
Apr 25, 06:58 AM
For 99% of the market, the integrated graphics are fine. The majority of consumers don't read tech sites and are happy with the performance. The typical pc buyer doesn't know what a benchmark is. In almost every Apple vs Winodws pc argument on this and every other Mac site, the Mac fans without fail say specs don't matter. If you're a gamer, you'll notice the performance hit. To the million plus people who will buy the next model it won't make any difference.
Yes, that is the Apple mentality. No more is it about making the best machine, but about making it "good enough". That speech in 2008 with the intro of the Unibody MacBook with the then nVidia 9400m where Apple realises "graphics are important and boy did we pack this thing with graphics power!" is gone.
You're right. I should just eat my pill and accept the lesser GPU. :rolleyes:
The only thing holding me back from a Mac before 2008 was the Intel GPU. The only thing that will hold me back from purchasing a new one after this is Air is... Intel graphics.
Yes, that is the Apple mentality. No more is it about making the best machine, but about making it "good enough". That speech in 2008 with the intro of the Unibody MacBook with the then nVidia 9400m where Apple realises "graphics are important and boy did we pack this thing with graphics power!" is gone.
You're right. I should just eat my pill and accept the lesser GPU. :rolleyes:
The only thing holding me back from a Mac before 2008 was the Intel GPU. The only thing that will hold me back from purchasing a new one after this is Air is... Intel graphics.
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 03:57 PM
But as I said, for HOME viewing, is there a precedent for ads?
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
Thunderhawks
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
Talk about an ugly logo for USB3!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Tones2
Apr 22, 09:31 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
cult hero
Mar 22, 03:03 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
wisty
Mar 30, 11:55 AM
But they are not calling it 'Application Store'
They are calling it 'App Store' ;)
Nor 'App Market', 'App Shop', 'App Stop', 'App Emporium' (Apporium?), 'App Bazaar', or 'Steve's Discount App Dump'. There's lots of good names out there.
They are calling it 'App Store' ;)
Nor 'App Market', 'App Shop', 'App Stop', 'App Emporium' (Apporium?), 'App Bazaar', or 'Steve's Discount App Dump'. There's lots of good names out there.
slffl
Sep 5, 12:48 PM
I don't know about this video streaming device. Let's see, first I use a powerbook. If I'm in the bedroom I just watch it on the laptop. If I'm in the TV room, I have a DVD player and Tivo. I'm not sure who they're going after with this. Now if you can wirelessly stream from an ipod to the device, that might be interesting, especially if the 'client' pieces were cheap, you could hook one to every tv in the house.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 10:37 PM
hey, don't knock the cube! you can get a dual 1.6Ghz G4 cube nowadays :rolleyes:
Kashchei
Aug 31, 11:47 AM
Merom MacBook Pro + Conroe iMac + speedbumped Mac mini + iTunes movie downloads + widescreen video iPod
You took the words right out of my mouth!
You took the words right out of my mouth!
aegisdesign
Sep 11, 07:17 AM
But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.
That's a very, very small market.
Half-Life on the PC sold 8 million out of a market of 250 million PCs bought that year. ie. 3% of PC owners bought it. I'd guess the number of those running SLI is in the order of that kind of percentage again, maybe 10% of that 3%.
And that's a top game. Most decent games sell in the order of 1 million.
The Sims sold 16 million and doesn't need SLI at all which IMHO goes to show that developers should concentrate on original games instead of yet another FPS.
That's a very, very small market.
Half-Life on the PC sold 8 million out of a market of 250 million PCs bought that year. ie. 3% of PC owners bought it. I'd guess the number of those running SLI is in the order of that kind of percentage again, maybe 10% of that 3%.
And that's a top game. Most decent games sell in the order of 1 million.
The Sims sold 16 million and doesn't need SLI at all which IMHO goes to show that developers should concentrate on original games instead of yet another FPS.
coder12
May 3, 11:08 AM
What do people prefer? I've heard quite bad things about the Magic Mouse, the majority of people saying they find it uncomfortable etc?
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
Eraserhead
Apr 19, 04:19 PM
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
Probably not. If the bankers had worked sensible hours they'd have been better integrated with society as a whole which would almost certainly have made the financial crisis less likely.
Probably not. If the bankers had worked sensible hours they'd have been better integrated with society as a whole which would almost certainly have made the financial crisis less likely.
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:00 PM
Off Apple's website that he pointed you to:
Playback time (30GB model)
Playback time (30GB model)
mex4eric
Apr 30, 03:12 PM
Sounds good! New iMacs May 3rd, new MacBook Airs, maybe June 7th, MacOS-X 10.7, Lion, later in June. Keep it up!
scottsjack
May 3, 02:49 PM
I *would* worry, for the following reasons:
linux2mac
May 3, 11:19 AM
At this price point and with these features - they may push even more customers away from the mac pro and towards the iMac. Even for some pretty heavy lifting, it's going to be a beast of a machine.
I can say from experience that the i7 SB is a wonderful CPU. It competes with or beats the top end 6 core processors in apps that are not heavily multi-threaded.
It's pretty nice that those dell 30 inchers are almost exactly the same size as the iMac.
Absolutely. If going Mac Pro route you still need 3 ACD's. Going iMac route you just need two ACD's. I still doubt I will need the power of i7 for my PHP/MySQL coding but I will take it. :)
I can say from experience that the i7 SB is a wonderful CPU. It competes with or beats the top end 6 core processors in apps that are not heavily multi-threaded.
It's pretty nice that those dell 30 inchers are almost exactly the same size as the iMac.
Absolutely. If going Mac Pro route you still need 3 ACD's. Going iMac route you just need two ACD's. I still doubt I will need the power of i7 for my PHP/MySQL coding but I will take it. :)