Mac Fly (film)
Sep 14, 10:03 PM
one of the best predictions i have heard to date...
Why thank you!
Why thank you!
Gaelic2
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Still lovin' my 2009 iMac.... best machine I've ever owned.
I'm with you!This gas been a great computer with few, if any, problems for me. I think I'll wait awhile so they can get HDs at a decent price that can hookup to Thunderbolt. I seem to run quite well at the speed I have now. Any increase wouldn't be noticed since I rarely encode videos.
I'm with you!This gas been a great computer with few, if any, problems for me. I think I'll wait awhile so they can get HDs at a decent price that can hookup to Thunderbolt. I seem to run quite well at the speed I have now. Any increase wouldn't be noticed since I rarely encode videos.
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.
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.
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 01:06 AM
I've seen people like the OP get pulled up and receive whopping great tickets from the cops. To say the least they look terrified about what their mum will say when she finds out. It makes me laugh.
alent1234
Apr 29, 02:11 PM
I would call more than half its life, counting today, to be "long".
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/xbox-goes-profitable-almost-like-a-grown-up-business/
http://www.businessinsider.com/next-xbox-may-be-profitable-on-day-one-2011-4
The division sold its first unit in being started (and costing money) well before that, no doubt. It didn't hit "black" until 2008. In big business, that's basically a miracle story of survival. If Sony wasn't making money elsewhere, you can bet it would not have even made the 360.
both articles say the division/business unit that the x-box is in finally turned a profit. in 2010 this unit also included Office for Mac and Zune. the latest earnings release has no mention of Office for Mac in this unit but it still has windows phone and Microsoft's IP Television unit. ironically the big profit jump came after office for mac was kicked out of the unit
i'm bet x-box has been doing just fine and that windows phone and the IPTV units are the loss leaders
at some point apple is going to stop growing because the market penetration of smartphones will be at the point where you are just selling replacement phones. since AT&T opened the floodgates last year for early upgrades we'll see how things go this year
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/xbox-goes-profitable-almost-like-a-grown-up-business/
http://www.businessinsider.com/next-xbox-may-be-profitable-on-day-one-2011-4
The division sold its first unit in being started (and costing money) well before that, no doubt. It didn't hit "black" until 2008. In big business, that's basically a miracle story of survival. If Sony wasn't making money elsewhere, you can bet it would not have even made the 360.
both articles say the division/business unit that the x-box is in finally turned a profit. in 2010 this unit also included Office for Mac and Zune. the latest earnings release has no mention of Office for Mac in this unit but it still has windows phone and Microsoft's IP Television unit. ironically the big profit jump came after office for mac was kicked out of the unit
i'm bet x-box has been doing just fine and that windows phone and the IPTV units are the loss leaders
at some point apple is going to stop growing because the market penetration of smartphones will be at the point where you are just selling replacement phones. since AT&T opened the floodgates last year for early upgrades we'll see how things go this year
cube
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
Err... and how is that relevant? I'm sure Blu-Ray will live on in other notebooks, but Apple's? Unlikely.
There were 100GB BDXL when Apple refreshed the MacBook Pro's this year.
There are no BDXL notebook drives yet.
Just preempting any claim that there's no place for optical drives because "BD is obsolete".
Even DVDs and CDs are not obsolete. They are mainstream distribution media.
Optical drives at not at all at "floppy time".
There were 100GB BDXL when Apple refreshed the MacBook Pro's this year.
There are no BDXL notebook drives yet.
Just preempting any claim that there's no place for optical drives because "BD is obsolete".
Even DVDs and CDs are not obsolete. They are mainstream distribution media.
Optical drives at not at all at "floppy time".
Cameront9
Sep 5, 01:22 PM
My question is, will the movies have subtitles/captioning. As a hearing impaired user, that's the deal breaker for me. If they do have captioning, I can see myself purchasing a few movies once in a while (Though I'd still rather have DVDs most of the time). If not, no way.
SPUY767
Sep 11, 09:57 AM
I'm hoping for iMacs because I could care less about downloading Movies. Hell the only TV I download are the free eps. Unless you can get me 5.1 surround, DVD quality for a monthly fee that is less than Netflix... well, Netflix is still king to me. :)
Especially since DVDs ar easier to copy than these files would ever be. Not that i copy DVD's or anything.
I predict the following:
iTunes Movie Store with... 1080 HD movie downloads.
Updated Cinema Displays.
New Airport Extreme with 802.11n (for streaming the said Movies wirelessly)
iPod updates, either slightly modified nano(new cases+more compacity) and/or updated video iPods with higher compacity for said HD movies.
;)
I really do think theywill be available in 1080, and that will be a very big deal.
blueray? hd dvd? who cares i can just get them on itunes.
Well, an 8 meg connection is adequate to stream the HD trailers in 720p. I honestly don't think that Apple would bother offering the movies in any higher quality, as the codec scales nicely, and most HD sets are 720p or just that ED crap. When a set says 1080i on the side it usually means that it can decode a 1080i signal, not that it can display it. If you have a 1080i capable TV, you'll know it cause your ass will hurt much more than the guy who buys the 720p set.
Especially since DVDs ar easier to copy than these files would ever be. Not that i copy DVD's or anything.
I predict the following:
iTunes Movie Store with... 1080 HD movie downloads.
Updated Cinema Displays.
New Airport Extreme with 802.11n (for streaming the said Movies wirelessly)
iPod updates, either slightly modified nano(new cases+more compacity) and/or updated video iPods with higher compacity for said HD movies.
;)
I really do think theywill be available in 1080, and that will be a very big deal.
blueray? hd dvd? who cares i can just get them on itunes.
Well, an 8 meg connection is adequate to stream the HD trailers in 720p. I honestly don't think that Apple would bother offering the movies in any higher quality, as the codec scales nicely, and most HD sets are 720p or just that ED crap. When a set says 1080i on the side it usually means that it can decode a 1080i signal, not that it can display it. If you have a 1080i capable TV, you'll know it cause your ass will hurt much more than the guy who buys the 720p set.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 03:43 AM
But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:
The new version of Speedstep that is available from Yonah upwards seems to be quite good. The operating system can reduce the clockspeed, but at lower clockspeed it can also reduce the voltage, and power consumption is proportional to (clockspeed x voltage x voltage).
So my idea would be: A control that lets you set "maximum fan noise". If you need to render an hour of video, you should set it to maximum, if you are doing audio recordings with your Mac and want it silent you set it to minimum. That control also shows whether your clockspeed has been throttled, so if you prefer the Mac fast instead of quiet, you can have that as well. So you get the best of both worlds.
The new version of Speedstep that is available from Yonah upwards seems to be quite good. The operating system can reduce the clockspeed, but at lower clockspeed it can also reduce the voltage, and power consumption is proportional to (clockspeed x voltage x voltage).
So my idea would be: A control that lets you set "maximum fan noise". If you need to render an hour of video, you should set it to maximum, if you are doing audio recordings with your Mac and want it silent you set it to minimum. That control also shows whether your clockspeed has been throttled, so if you prefer the Mac fast instead of quiet, you can have that as well. So you get the best of both worlds.
Satori
Apr 19, 06:46 AM
Do any of these suits ever actually get resolved?
cube
May 3, 11:00 AM
It should not have dual Thunderbolt. It should have 1 Thunderbolt (without DisplayPort if required) and 1 DisplayPort 1.2
The discrete graphics chips in the new iMacs support up to 6 displays (including built-in), but this is crippled by Thunderbolt.
The same happens with the discrete graphics of the MBPs, which could support up to 4 or 6 displays (including built-in).
The discrete graphics chips in the new iMacs support up to 6 displays (including built-in), but this is crippled by Thunderbolt.
The same happens with the discrete graphics of the MBPs, which could support up to 4 or 6 displays (including built-in).
mox358
Sep 13, 09:47 PM
I am with you on this. I don't see the real compelling reason to have a plain old iPod that makes phone calls and sucks all my battery so I can't play music, or vice versa. It needs to be a compelling smart phone, that will be the inovative part, not the hardware design. We all know it will look like a nano.
But why should it? This isn't Motorola... this is Apple. They are supposed to be the masters of industrial design and software integration. No doubt the phone will have an awesome user interface, but I expect more from Apple than sticking an antenna and GSM chip inside a nano, putting a keypad underneath it, and calling it a day. This couldn't have taken very long to dream up... it seems like the most obvious and un-Apple idea of them all.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
But why should it? This isn't Motorola... this is Apple. They are supposed to be the masters of industrial design and software integration. No doubt the phone will have an awesome user interface, but I expect more from Apple than sticking an antenna and GSM chip inside a nano, putting a keypad underneath it, and calling it a day. This couldn't have taken very long to dream up... it seems like the most obvious and un-Apple idea of them all.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
tylersdad
Apr 4, 12:14 PM
Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...
But that's just me.
And in the heat of the moment with fractions of a second to decide, he's suppose to consider the possibility that this guy just wants a free iPad and probably won't shoot to kill him?
I don't think so.
But that's just me.
And in the heat of the moment with fractions of a second to decide, he's suppose to consider the possibility that this guy just wants a free iPad and probably won't shoot to kill him?
I don't think so.
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:38 PM
No, actually it says:
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);
This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)
It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);
This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)
It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Sydde
Apr 18, 09:21 PM
We need unions to protect people from abusive BS like this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/walmart-contracted-warehouse-workers_n_848262.html). Either that or we just need to have a limit on how big a company can get before it has to become the property of the employees.
Tommy Wasabi
Sep 14, 08:38 AM
Apple is NOT going to go thru the effort of putting together a special invite just to intro A2. They would lose street cred (and let's face it - they are getting a little over saturated).
I'm a betting man - it's the new MBP - but ALSO IN A NEW FORMAT - maybe even the slate.
Now "I'd buy that for a dollar"
I'm a betting man - it's the new MBP - but ALSO IN A NEW FORMAT - maybe even the slate.
Now "I'd buy that for a dollar"
Mal
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to carry a gun? If you're supposed to be guarding something and those you're guarding against are statistically likely to be carrying weapons, then you should definitely be carrying yourself, for your own personal protection if nothing else.
Also, to everyone saying he should have just wounded the man: If I ever fire a weapon at someone (and I hope I never have to), I will only do so if I am willing to kill them. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", because no one is a good enough shot at range with a handgun to insure they will only wound and not kill. You aim for the largest target, which is center of mass, and you only fire if you're willing to kill the person you're firing at. That doesn't mean you would prefer if they didn't die, because the loss of any life is a sad event, even scum like this, but you don't try to do that. Especially in the heat of the moment as you're being shot at.
jW
Why shouldn't he be allowed to carry a gun? If you're supposed to be guarding something and those you're guarding against are statistically likely to be carrying weapons, then you should definitely be carrying yourself, for your own personal protection if nothing else.
Also, to everyone saying he should have just wounded the man: If I ever fire a weapon at someone (and I hope I never have to), I will only do so if I am willing to kill them. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", because no one is a good enough shot at range with a handgun to insure they will only wound and not kill. You aim for the largest target, which is center of mass, and you only fire if you're willing to kill the person you're firing at. That doesn't mean you would prefer if they didn't die, because the loss of any life is a sad event, even scum like this, but you don't try to do that. Especially in the heat of the moment as you're being shot at.
jW
MacRumors
Sep 13, 08:53 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Rumors of an Apple Phone have been ongoing for years (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020818203655.shtml) with Apple laying claim to the domain iPhone.org (http://www.iphone.org) since 1999 and the trademark for iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021203005112.shtml) in 2002. Meanwhile, a number of Phone related patents (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060505202447.shtml) have also surfaced showing that Apple has been researching this option.
Recently, analysts have claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905150232.shtml) that the Apple phone is essentially ready with a brief description:
The design will be an iPod nano-like candy bar form factor and come in three colors
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs has been said (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060811110535.shtml) to be talking up the upcoming phone, despite being traditionally secretive about unannounced products.
One reliable MacRumors.com source has provided a more detailed description of one of the prototypes for the upcoming Apple Phone. The description has yielded this artist's rendition of the phone. The phone offers a familiar look to iPod owners, with the preservation of the iPod click-wheel.
The click-wheel is closer to the bottom of the device with the screen taking a vertical orientation. The click-wheel portion of the device reportedly slides down to reveal a traditional numeric dial-pad underneath. The front is black, while the back is chrome like the current iPod.
As an artist rendition, details such as the exact proportions of the screen are not necessarily accurate.
The preservation of the click-wheel navigator could add credence to evidence (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913170940.shtml) that iTunes has the ability to transfer the new iPod games to certain mobile phones. Jobs had stated that the games had been designed for click-wheel playability.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_thumb.jpg (http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_macrumors.jpg)
click for larger image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_macrumors.jpg)
[ digg this ] (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_s_Phone_Revealed)
Rumors of an Apple Phone have been ongoing for years (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020818203655.shtml) with Apple laying claim to the domain iPhone.org (http://www.iphone.org) since 1999 and the trademark for iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021203005112.shtml) in 2002. Meanwhile, a number of Phone related patents (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060505202447.shtml) have also surfaced showing that Apple has been researching this option.
Recently, analysts have claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905150232.shtml) that the Apple phone is essentially ready with a brief description:
The design will be an iPod nano-like candy bar form factor and come in three colors
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs has been said (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060811110535.shtml) to be talking up the upcoming phone, despite being traditionally secretive about unannounced products.
One reliable MacRumors.com source has provided a more detailed description of one of the prototypes for the upcoming Apple Phone. The description has yielded this artist's rendition of the phone. The phone offers a familiar look to iPod owners, with the preservation of the iPod click-wheel.
The click-wheel is closer to the bottom of the device with the screen taking a vertical orientation. The click-wheel portion of the device reportedly slides down to reveal a traditional numeric dial-pad underneath. The front is black, while the back is chrome like the current iPod.
As an artist rendition, details such as the exact proportions of the screen are not necessarily accurate.
The preservation of the click-wheel navigator could add credence to evidence (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913170940.shtml) that iTunes has the ability to transfer the new iPod games to certain mobile phones. Jobs had stated that the games had been designed for click-wheel playability.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_thumb.jpg (http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_macrumors.jpg)
click for larger image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/iphone_macrumors.jpg)
[ digg this ] (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_s_Phone_Revealed)
codymac
Apr 11, 09:18 PM
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Amazing Iceman
Mar 30, 11:55 AM
I'm thinkin' Apple should have gone with "iApp Store" (u heard it here FIRST! Let me get a trademark/patent on that) b/c Microsoft is just a big ole' COPYCAT...lol :D
It's not easy to pronounce "iApp Store". It wouldn't have worked out too well.
Apple should have patented "AppStore" as one word instead of two words "App Store". Or should have patented both to be safe.
Anyways, phonetically both sound the same, and that may be a good argument; it worked for Microsoft when they sued "Lindows".
It's not easy to pronounce "iApp Store". It wouldn't have worked out too well.
Apple should have patented "AppStore" as one word instead of two words "App Store". Or should have patented both to be safe.
Anyways, phonetically both sound the same, and that may be a good argument; it worked for Microsoft when they sued "Lindows".
grum
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
Pretty big thing if you are into dance music/dj mixes that are seperated into tracks. There are suprisingly few mp3 players that will play them gapless
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
Pretty big thing if you are into dance music/dj mixes that are seperated into tracks. There are suprisingly few mp3 players that will play them gapless
mkrishnan
Sep 19, 01:35 PM
Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.
dejo
Nov 13, 03:54 PM
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).