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?
bankshot
Sep 12, 03:07 PM
Gapless was the #1 request?? Holy cow! :eek: Then what took them so friggin long?
I've been under the impression that gapless was only desired by 0.000001% of the users, and therefore Apple didn't give a damn about it. I assumed that the other 99.999999% of users only listen to shuffle mode and don't care about traditional albums. Seems pretty reasonable based on what's popular these days. But the #1 request? Surely this should have been fixed in the 2nd generation iPod then, 3rd generation at the latest.
I'm not complaining, this just really, really surprises me. I'm so happy to see that it's fixed, finally, so I can go out and buy a replacement iPod soon, after holding out for over a year. Better days are here to stay. ;)
I've been under the impression that gapless was only desired by 0.000001% of the users, and therefore Apple didn't give a damn about it. I assumed that the other 99.999999% of users only listen to shuffle mode and don't care about traditional albums. Seems pretty reasonable based on what's popular these days. But the #1 request? Surely this should have been fixed in the 2nd generation iPod then, 3rd generation at the latest.
I'm not complaining, this just really, really surprises me. I'm so happy to see that it's fixed, finally, so I can go out and buy a replacement iPod soon, after holding out for over a year. Better days are here to stay. ;)
Willis
Sep 9, 05:00 AM
64-bit likes rosetta it seems. Good speed gain for CS2. 27/36 seconds quicker aint bad. Im guessing the larger L2 cache has some play in that too.
I love that 24". Its a BEAST!
I love that 24". Its a BEAST!
KPOM
Apr 22, 12:03 PM
I don't see why this will it make cheaper. Beside MBA price lowered drastically from the previous iteration and had good sales recently because of it - so, don't hope too much about it.
True. I'm guessing that Apple has found the right price point. Now that the 13" Pro has been updated, it is probably cannibalizing sales of the 13" Air, which may be why the sales have reportedly dropped so much. At the same time, Samsung and others have competing designs with the Core i5.
I don't game, so I'd definitely consider putting the 11" up for sale and getting the 11" Sandy Bridge model. Perhaps I'll wait for them to appear as refurbs. If history is any guide, that would be the October timeframe, assuming these do come out in June.
True. I'm guessing that Apple has found the right price point. Now that the 13" Pro has been updated, it is probably cannibalizing sales of the 13" Air, which may be why the sales have reportedly dropped so much. At the same time, Samsung and others have competing designs with the Core i5.
I don't game, so I'd definitely consider putting the 11" up for sale and getting the 11" Sandy Bridge model. Perhaps I'll wait for them to appear as refurbs. If history is any guide, that would be the October timeframe, assuming these do come out in June.
valiar
Sep 22, 03:14 AM
Not sure if anyone will read my post after 8 pages...
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam. :mad:
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam. :mad:
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
Renverse
Apr 28, 05:54 PM
This thread is so full of uneducated posts, it's really disgusting. You should've known this would happen, MacRumors. These kind of articles really bring out the worst kind of people. All you fanboys should be ashamed of yourselves, really.
Tones2
Mar 29, 12:25 PM
Over FOUR YEARS, which is a major amount of time in this market, I think iOS, Andriod and Windows phones with all be pretty much the same. I think there's going to be a point where that not more more to do with hardware in terms of innovative features. The OS's themselves are really just shells for running apps anyway, and they will all do this fairly effectively in similar ways, a lot like OSX and Win7 are two good OS's. The key will be the app market, which Apple currently holds a huge lead, but in 4 years it would seem that Android and Windows will catch up in terms of IMPORTANT apps to run, so that will be levelized as well.
The iPhone will always have the crazy fanboys to their advantage but Android and Windows phones have the flexibility factor of an open platform where a number of manufacturers can make phones at different price points in different markets.
So in 4 years, I think all will have similar market shares, with iOS being at the bottom of the three just in terms of number of phones because of the closed platform syndrome, but not by much. However, the iPhone will be the most profitable of the three for the OS manufacturers since Apple also maks the hardware.
So let's call it a tie - everybody wins, including the consumer. Remember fanboys - competition and choice is a GOOD thing!
Tony
The iPhone will always have the crazy fanboys to their advantage but Android and Windows phones have the flexibility factor of an open platform where a number of manufacturers can make phones at different price points in different markets.
So in 4 years, I think all will have similar market shares, with iOS being at the bottom of the three just in terms of number of phones because of the closed platform syndrome, but not by much. However, the iPhone will be the most profitable of the three for the OS manufacturers since Apple also maks the hardware.
So let's call it a tie - everybody wins, including the consumer. Remember fanboys - competition and choice is a GOOD thing!
Tony
RichP
Sep 19, 01:37 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
I concur. 1 and 3 months out will really tell how this service fares.
So far though, it is a good start.
I concur. 1 and 3 months out will really tell how this service fares.
So far though, it is a good start.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:41 PM
I've heard about clovertown coming all along and have put off buying a Mac Pro. I'd much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work I do.Of course almost everyone here knows I'm with you. I was surprised that the Mac Pro would require such expensive RAM which really puts me off. So I'm hoping that the popularity of Mac Pro RAM will drive down RAM cost to us by the time the Clovertown Mac Pro ships.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 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.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
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.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
babyj
Sep 19, 03:44 PM
Honestly I think movies will come to other countries before TV Shows do. Movies are more universal than TV Shows are, each country has their own TV Shows but everyone wants to watch Lord of the Rings.
I'd of thought movies will come to the rest of the world pretty quickly. There shouldn't be any licensing issues so its probably more due to logistics than anything else.
TV is totally different as most of the main programmes are already licensed to other broadcasters for other markets. Which would make selling episodes online outside of the home market tricky, it'll happen one day but it will take time.
I doubt I'll be buying any movies or tv shows when they come to the UK, I've never bought a single tune before now from iTunes. I run about 6-12 months behind everyone else and buy cds and dvds when they've been reduced, it works out a lot cheaper.
I'd of thought movies will come to the rest of the world pretty quickly. There shouldn't be any licensing issues so its probably more due to logistics than anything else.
TV is totally different as most of the main programmes are already licensed to other broadcasters for other markets. Which would make selling episodes online outside of the home market tricky, it'll happen one day but it will take time.
I doubt I'll be buying any movies or tv shows when they come to the UK, I've never bought a single tune before now from iTunes. I run about 6-12 months behind everyone else and buy cds and dvds when they've been reduced, it works out a lot cheaper.
zero2dash
Aug 28, 12:43 PM
With the switch to Intel, Apple may have to provide timely upgrades to remain competitive with Windows-based PC manufacturers.
Apple isn't trying to remain competitive with anyone. :rolleyes:
Never have, never will.
They march to the beat of their own drum.
Apple isn't trying to remain competitive with anyone. :rolleyes:
Never have, never will.
They march to the beat of their own drum.
rtdunham
Oct 27, 11:16 AM
For all of Steve Jobs' zen-attitude, vegetarianism, often-proclaimed "do the right thing" stance, and Apple's financial liquidity, there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the change and Apple isn't willing to move in the right direction with their products.
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
JGowan
Apr 19, 09:33 AM
Between Samsung on the hardware and Google on the software, I can't believe anyone in their right mind actually saying with a straight face that the Samsung phone in question is not stealing from Apple. Get a grip.
SilianRail
Apr 14, 04:58 PM
Using the 3.0 drive, the 10-gigabyte folder transferred to the U.S.B. 3.0 drive in 6 minutes, 31 seconds (write speed). The U.S.B. 2.0 drive took 22 minutes, 14 seconds to copy the same 10-gig folder.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Danner909
Apr 4, 12:37 PM
This Apple bites back . . .
logandzwon
Mar 29, 12:01 PM
I LOLed when I saw this, but after reading it, I see what they are doing. They obviously strongly believe in Nokia's world-wide relevance. They think pretty much every Symbian user will switch over to winmo7.
fxtech
Apr 19, 08:37 AM
Who is this Samsung who has developed most of its own stuff? Living abroad casts a good shadow on Samsung, but in its home country, Sammy is just a thug with endless pockets (thanks to tax freedom granted by the Korean government). Samsung buy out other techs and then put their badge and later, establish their name as the manufacturer. They are NOT innovators.
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
BWhaler
Sep 27, 04:43 AM
Enough with the dance. Release the product already.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Rocketman
Mar 22, 01:21 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
Rocketman
charlituna
May 3, 11:05 AM
So when is the ACD gonna support thunderbolt?
Likely never. At least by Apple. That is old school tech that they want you to replace.
Likely never. At least by Apple. That is old school tech that they want you to replace.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 12:39 PM
Yes, but to the average consumer. These things aren't very important. They will be looking at Ghz, and Apple's "X times faster" looks at the processor. That is what Apple is marketing, not FSB.
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:22 AM
That section states that by turning off Location Services, the data won't be tracked/collected. I think that these guys are saying that the data still is being collected, regardless of what your Location settings are.
from: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/your-iphone-is-silently-and-constantly-logging-your-location/
What evidence, though? Just stating it means nothing. Prove it. Show us the data from that time when it was off.
from: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/your-iphone-is-silently-and-constantly-logging-your-location/
What evidence, though? Just stating it means nothing. Prove it. Show us the data from that time when it was off.
kresh
Apr 28, 09:22 PM
I do know that you have no idea what Certified Cost Engineer
So you're that SOB that sticks a $0.25, engineered to fail, part in an otherwise outstanding product? :eek:
j/k
So you're that SOB that sticks a $0.25, engineered to fail, part in an otherwise outstanding product? :eek:
j/k
0 comments:
Post a Comment