theman5725
Sep 15, 05:46 PM
why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/
cube
Apr 22, 11:55 AM
If Blu-Ray was going to happen it would've been in the refresh of 2011 MBP's. I can't imagine the optical drive being around much longer in anything other than the Mac Pro.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
cere
Apr 14, 02:02 PM
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:08 AM
Whoa..
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
mashny
May 3, 03:00 PM
Wow, over 160 posts, a glossy monitor on the new iMac, and we haven't had a matte vs. glossy fistfight yet.
elgrecomac
Mar 30, 11:25 AM
He will need to be a 'cunning linguist' to assist Microsoft.
:cool:
:cool:
iMikeT
Oct 27, 04:40 PM
This is just what we need, more hippies....
harry20larry
Apr 11, 11:06 AM
Home sharing from your Mac won't do that?
Nope, because I want everybody to play their own libraries to some proper speaker, not internal speakers
Nope, because I want everybody to play their own libraries to some proper speaker, not internal speakers
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:20 PM
Don't get me wrong, MAD is a very great organization, but kids aren't supposed to drink at all.
Don't be kind -- MADD is a prohibitionist organization that has moved so far away from it's original mission that even the founder no longer has anything to do with it. They've turned into a bunch of loonies who are constantly pushing to stay relevant by crusading against the legal right to drink in this country.
They've brought the per se intoxication level down to .08, and they're continuing for it to be lower.
Don't be kind -- MADD is a prohibitionist organization that has moved so far away from it's original mission that even the founder no longer has anything to do with it. They've turned into a bunch of loonies who are constantly pushing to stay relevant by crusading against the legal right to drink in this country.
They've brought the per se intoxication level down to .08, and they're continuing for it to be lower.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 4, 08:06 PM
"Media Device" = Does it include an iPod Video?
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
TV shows are US only, but I doubt Movies will be US only. That would be like music being US only? TV shows are a different animal.
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
TV shows are US only, but I doubt Movies will be US only. That would be like music being US only? TV shows are a different animal.
superleccy
Sep 4, 07:23 PM
Maybe I am dense, but why stream it to the TV wen a mini can connect to the TV after downloading the show? Maybe to send it to multiple TVs in the house at the same time? Sounds expensive and short lived.
Well I'd like it. I have an iBook G4 hooked up to a 250Gb LaCie drive, on which I store stuff I've pulled from Elgato EyeTV2.x. They sit upstairs. My TV, on the other hand, is downstairs. I can't be bothered carrying my Laptop AND my LaCie AND their power supplies downstairs every time I want to watch a show. I want to sit in my living room, and browse my recorded content without having to physically touch my Mac.
I don't want to buy a Mac Mini (and then pay twice for every subsequent release OS X).
And then hey, I guess I could do all the other Front Row stuff too. Sorted.
A "Video AirPort Exprerss" is the way to go... come on Apple!
Regds
SL
Well I'd like it. I have an iBook G4 hooked up to a 250Gb LaCie drive, on which I store stuff I've pulled from Elgato EyeTV2.x. They sit upstairs. My TV, on the other hand, is downstairs. I can't be bothered carrying my Laptop AND my LaCie AND their power supplies downstairs every time I want to watch a show. I want to sit in my living room, and browse my recorded content without having to physically touch my Mac.
I don't want to buy a Mac Mini (and then pay twice for every subsequent release OS X).
And then hey, I guess I could do all the other Front Row stuff too. Sorted.
A "Video AirPort Exprerss" is the way to go... come on Apple!
Regds
SL
GFLPraxis
Apr 28, 03:33 PM
I'd be rather concerned about Apple's margins considering we're comparing a hardware company to a software company (free duplication of your product, once you've gotten past the millions in R&D to develop it) that has a captive market as large as Microsoft's (guaranteed sales to pay for your R&D easy, and a very large price point at $200-$300 a pop for Windows and Office).
However, maybe it's Microsoft that should be concerned; either Apple has disgusting margins, or Microsoft's other divisions are simply squandering their revenue so bad that they are essentially subsidizing the entire company with Windows/Office.
However, maybe it's Microsoft that should be concerned; either Apple has disgusting margins, or Microsoft's other divisions are simply squandering their revenue so bad that they are essentially subsidizing the entire company with Windows/Office.
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:50 PM
Have I just done the impossible? :D
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5492/excels.th.png (http://img215.imageshack.us/i/excels.png/) http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8916/wordc.th.png (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/wordc.png/)
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5492/excels.th.png (http://img215.imageshack.us/i/excels.png/) http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8916/wordc.th.png (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/wordc.png/)
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
iSpartan
Apr 22, 11:22 AM
As my first post to macrumors, I just purchased a 13" refurb 30 min ago. Oh well, still good technology. I can finally sell my 2007 macbook.
roadbloc
Mar 24, 04:53 AM
Yawn. This thread is still alive? :rolleyes:
ChazUK
Apr 20, 01:38 PM
Enough with the chicken little episodes already.
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
If you think that this is a privacy concern then you need to have your head examined. It is anonymous statistical information and nothing more.
Watch the video. It was happening on the guys phones who discovered it in the UK. Unless AT&T's signal is better than people let on, I doubt they have signal in the UK. ;)
Edit: From tatonka's link below, this is Southern England.
prince william kate middleton
Prince William and Kate
prince william and kate
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
If you think that this is a privacy concern then you need to have your head examined. It is anonymous statistical information and nothing more.
Watch the video. It was happening on the guys phones who discovered it in the UK. Unless AT&T's signal is better than people let on, I doubt they have signal in the UK. ;)
Edit: From tatonka's link below, this is Southern England.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 12:01 PM
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
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?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
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?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
Mord
Aug 23, 05:37 PM
thats retarded, apple holds many patents creative infringes, they should of fought it harder.
VespR
Sep 13, 06:32 AM
Pretty weak update to the "flagship" pod. I bought a nano last month (glad I did, hate the colours, and wouldn't feel happy about paying �100 more just to get it in black). I'll assume black nanos/vpods have been booming so they thought they'd slap a premium on it this time, bit harsh really.
The software update is, well, a software update. They could have rolled that out anytime over the last year but it always bodes well with a new 'product'. Also all the talk on battery life, I suspect that has nothing to do with a different or better battery but rather Apples default settings on brightness/volume. I find everytime I play my ipod on Apples default volume setting, I get more or less what's said on the tin. Shame it's too quiet for the London Transport System (tubes/trains) to listen to so I'm forced to turn it up and lose a few hours. I suspect the default brightness level will be lower than what it was initially which has resulted in the increase in life.
I do want an vPod, and around the 60/80GB mark (30 -> 80 jump is crazy?!), but not with that size screen. I'll wait till it's in wide, and then tune into Lost/24 on the commute so I can actually see what's going on. Plus I'm sure they should be getting slimmer these days... Steves year of HD really isn't working out like I thought...
The software update is, well, a software update. They could have rolled that out anytime over the last year but it always bodes well with a new 'product'. Also all the talk on battery life, I suspect that has nothing to do with a different or better battery but rather Apples default settings on brightness/volume. I find everytime I play my ipod on Apples default volume setting, I get more or less what's said on the tin. Shame it's too quiet for the London Transport System (tubes/trains) to listen to so I'm forced to turn it up and lose a few hours. I suspect the default brightness level will be lower than what it was initially which has resulted in the increase in life.
I do want an vPod, and around the 60/80GB mark (30 -> 80 jump is crazy?!), but not with that size screen. I'll wait till it's in wide, and then tune into Lost/24 on the commute so I can actually see what's going on. Plus I'm sure they should be getting slimmer these days... Steves year of HD really isn't working out like I thought...
ValSalva
Apr 30, 01:47 PM
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3.
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 02:01 PM
Apple did this same thing before.Streaming it to London..If I recall it was the Front Row type invitation broadcast from a theatre..
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:55 AM
Because Apple lost? Yes, patent-system IS messed up. But Apple is taking advatange of it as well. Now that Apple lost, everybody complains, yet no-one complains when Apple files for obvious patents as well.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
acslater017
Sep 5, 04:06 PM
I expect upgrades to the laptops, iMac, and Mini. Also, there is a good chance of introducing either a iPhone or a iHome.
iTunes Movie Store is certain, although it would be interesting to note how apple goes about selling movies (like the resolution, download times, pricing etc.)
haha wasn't the iHome that supposed elevator photo thing?
iTunes Movie Store is certain, although it would be interesting to note how apple goes about selling movies (like the resolution, download times, pricing etc.)
haha wasn't the iHome that supposed elevator photo thing?
