Duujo
Aug 28, 06:19 PM
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
PghLondon
Apr 30, 01:48 PM
Okay, so now all I have to do is hope for SATA 3 SSD connections and the prices to drop to i5 @ $1699 and i7 @ $1999. Some REAL good GPUs and more standard ram. :cool:
I hate to say it but I'll keep holding off if the interface connections don't start jumping up in spec. It's retarded to see Thunderbolt and no SATA 3 or USB 3. It will a (re)selling point later on when you're looking to sell it off for the next new one.
USB3 is dead tech. You'll never see it on a Mac. Would be VERY surprised to see eSATA, as well.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Thunderbolt drives will be out this summer.
Yup. Not sure why people are surprised that the machine with Thunderbolt came out before the drives/peripherals. Do you really think it would happen the other way around?
Compare:
"Here's a computer with a port that you can't use yet, but will be able to soon as peripherals are built. You can still use the rest of the computer, though"
to
"Here's a peripheral with a port that isn't supported by any computers yet. There should be something out soon, though"
Not really a tough decision, eh?
I hate to say it but I'll keep holding off if the interface connections don't start jumping up in spec. It's retarded to see Thunderbolt and no SATA 3 or USB 3. It will a (re)selling point later on when you're looking to sell it off for the next new one.
USB3 is dead tech. You'll never see it on a Mac. Would be VERY surprised to see eSATA, as well.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Thunderbolt drives will be out this summer.
Yup. Not sure why people are surprised that the machine with Thunderbolt came out before the drives/peripherals. Do you really think it would happen the other way around?
Compare:
"Here's a computer with a port that you can't use yet, but will be able to soon as peripherals are built. You can still use the rest of the computer, though"
to
"Here's a peripheral with a port that isn't supported by any computers yet. There should be something out soon, though"
Not really a tough decision, eh?
goodcow
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
The problem with stolen Apple products would be no Applecare.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
mediasorcerer
Apr 30, 06:12 PM
When the hell are they gonna re-implement spaces !!@$%#^&(&)(#
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
isnt spaces already available? i have it on my mbpro.each corner is assigned ,can u explain what u mean?im confused.its still in sys prefs.
yes,i hope they put a good gpu in,i bet they will actually,imagine 2 gig ddr5 memory,they have finally come of age,or caught up so to speak,the last 27" imac i had was good,but the gpu let it down a little bit,
exciting anyway,always is when they refresh isnt it,even if ur not buying one,its still exciting,oh no,now i need to save some cash up,lol.
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
isnt spaces already available? i have it on my mbpro.each corner is assigned ,can u explain what u mean?im confused.its still in sys prefs.
yes,i hope they put a good gpu in,i bet they will actually,imagine 2 gig ddr5 memory,they have finally come of age,or caught up so to speak,the last 27" imac i had was good,but the gpu let it down a little bit,
exciting anyway,always is when they refresh isnt it,even if ur not buying one,its still exciting,oh no,now i need to save some cash up,lol.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I'd rather have none at all. This is a file being stored. It's big bad news.
Of course that's the ideal answer but an impossible answer. So again, Google or your device/computer?
Of course that's the ideal answer but an impossible answer. So again, Google or your device/computer?
Peace
Aug 28, 12:41 PM
Why so many negative votes?
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
e28
Aug 24, 10:41 AM
$100m = 4 days worth of iPod sales on average or 16 days of iPod profits.
Buhbuhb
Oct 12, 02:02 PM
i saw this being filmed while on lunch this afternoon. The GAP that's about a block away from the Apple store was wrapped in a bunch of (RED) garbage too.
Bono, Oprah, GAP, and APPLE...
The world is going to be turned upside down.
Bono, Oprah, GAP, and APPLE...
The world is going to be turned upside down.
peharri
Sep 14, 09:19 AM
Oh great, not this again.
BTW iPhone is not an Apple trademark. Doesn't make much difference, I'm sure Apple wouldn't call it the iPhone anyway, but iPhone is owned by Teledex, who are an IP telephony manufacturer.
Apple could do us a few favours and publicly announce it will never, ever, sell an Apple phone, just so this speculation ceases. Every time this rumour surfaces, Apple's chances of dominating the cellphone-MP3 player market through neutral licensing agreements becomes a little less likely.
Of course, they could be that stupid. As people run from MP3 players to MP3 phones, Apple releases a phone, doesn't license the technology to the dominant players, and it's share of the market drops from 75% to 3-5%. At which point nobody cares about iTunes any more, and the labels, fed up of the refusals to offer tiered pricing and other gripes, walk away. Buh-bye Apple as a major multimedia force.
BTW iPhone is not an Apple trademark. Doesn't make much difference, I'm sure Apple wouldn't call it the iPhone anyway, but iPhone is owned by Teledex, who are an IP telephony manufacturer.
Apple could do us a few favours and publicly announce it will never, ever, sell an Apple phone, just so this speculation ceases. Every time this rumour surfaces, Apple's chances of dominating the cellphone-MP3 player market through neutral licensing agreements becomes a little less likely.
Of course, they could be that stupid. As people run from MP3 players to MP3 phones, Apple releases a phone, doesn't license the technology to the dominant players, and it's share of the market drops from 75% to 3-5%. At which point nobody cares about iTunes any more, and the labels, fed up of the refusals to offer tiered pricing and other gripes, walk away. Buh-bye Apple as a major multimedia force.
kasei
Sep 19, 06:35 PM
This is great news. I guess the more we buy the faster we will see other studios with better movies. I guess I will take the plung and buy a movie today.
Sunrunner
Apr 25, 08:49 AM
Does this mean we will see a resolution downgrade to that of the 13 macbook pro's?
Im sure it will be a net plus
Im sure it will be a net plus
gugy
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
Good updates,
But I rather wait for the widescreen 120gb video ipod.
But I rather wait for the widescreen 120gb video ipod.
Illusion986
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
Lets sue the name "apple"
"the compound noun 'apple' means simply ' a healthy object created by nature wich will give you pleasure and a longer life,' which is merely a definition of the thing itself--a generic characterization."
Yep i have few of those...One is 24"
"the compound noun 'apple' means simply ' a healthy object created by nature wich will give you pleasure and a longer life,' which is merely a definition of the thing itself--a generic characterization."
Yep i have few of those...One is 24"
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
DrFrankTM
Sep 12, 05:02 AM
Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
Gundampilotspaz
Sep 5, 04:07 PM
I want my Core 2 Duo Macbook!
milo
Sep 6, 07:52 AM
This is what I had anticipated a while back, but Apple went and invested in the Mini as the quasi-set-top-box. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wonder if they would change horses mid stream, as it were. I think the video AE would be cool, but it's not quite mainstream enough for regular folk. The Mini, on the other hand, would be sufficiently mainstream if Apple cut the price a little bit and made Front Row a little more robust (and included a DVI to HDMI cable ;)).
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
mac2x
Mar 23, 02:16 AM
I totally agree. My C2D Macs ( I am a new Mac convert since 2009) are plenty fast for me even though the Apple haters on Mac Rumors are quick to tell me I have old technology with my C2D Macs. My Mini Server is one powerful little machine. I am running 3 virtual machines including a production web server and email server. The Macs "just work!" I can't say the same for my days with Windows.
The hard truth is that the C2Ds are more than enough for the vast majority of users.
If you are a gung ho power user, then no, but for most people these chips are still fine.
The hard truth is that the C2Ds are more than enough for the vast majority of users.
If you are a gung ho power user, then no, but for most people these chips are still fine.
MikeMc
Nov 14, 10:05 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
pyramid6
Oct 27, 10:12 AM
I highly doubt Apple is the forth worse company in the world. Greenpeace is just trying to ride Apple's popularity. I love it when groups practice civil disobedience, get punished, and then complain about it. You break the rules, you are supposed to get punished. That is the point of civil disobedience. Anyway, Greenpeace isn't stupid, even if they have lost thier way.
gnasher729
Mar 29, 12:10 PM
IDC seems to assume that anyone who would have walked into a store and bought a Nokia smartphone (with Symbian) will now walk into the store and still buy a Nokia smartphone (with WP7 this time).
"Smartphones" covers a huge range of different phones. iOS and Android cover the higher end, Symbian covered the lower end. In the future, building the hardware for a "smartphone" instead of a dumb phone will become cheaper; as a result, many people not interested in the capabilities of a smartphone at all will buy one by default; that will make the smartphone market grow. That is also what makes Apple's iPhone market share shrink: Apple's sales are growing, the market share among _all_ phones is growing, but because the percentage of smart phones among all phones is growing from say 20% to 90%, the market share among smart phones is going down.
But why would a former Nokia customer buy WP7? IDC assumes this will happen by default; they bought Nokia before, they bought Nokia again. But Nokia doesn't have the same product anymore. If the customer can't get something similar to what they had before, they are free to look _anywhere_. And WP7 can't beat Android on price (because of the license fees fees Nokia has to pay to Microsoft), and WP7 can't beat iOS on quality. I can't see any former Nokia customer deciding that a Nokia WP7 phone will be the best they can get for their money.
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
At some point Nokia had the best phones; then they messed it all up. People kept buying Nokia phones in shrinking numbers because they remembered Nokia's good reputation. That reputation is now gone. And there is still a bit of desert ahead of Nokia until they have WP7 phones for sale; that isn't going to help.
"Smartphones" covers a huge range of different phones. iOS and Android cover the higher end, Symbian covered the lower end. In the future, building the hardware for a "smartphone" instead of a dumb phone will become cheaper; as a result, many people not interested in the capabilities of a smartphone at all will buy one by default; that will make the smartphone market grow. That is also what makes Apple's iPhone market share shrink: Apple's sales are growing, the market share among _all_ phones is growing, but because the percentage of smart phones among all phones is growing from say 20% to 90%, the market share among smart phones is going down.
But why would a former Nokia customer buy WP7? IDC assumes this will happen by default; they bought Nokia before, they bought Nokia again. But Nokia doesn't have the same product anymore. If the customer can't get something similar to what they had before, they are free to look _anywhere_. And WP7 can't beat Android on price (because of the license fees fees Nokia has to pay to Microsoft), and WP7 can't beat iOS on quality. I can't see any former Nokia customer deciding that a Nokia WP7 phone will be the best they can get for their money.
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
At some point Nokia had the best phones; then they messed it all up. People kept buying Nokia phones in shrinking numbers because they remembered Nokia's good reputation. That reputation is now gone. And there is still a bit of desert ahead of Nokia until they have WP7 phones for sale; that isn't going to help.
ciTiger
Apr 30, 04:33 PM
It's always nice to see a refresh in an Apple product, it gives details on where their headed... But I really am bidding my time until the MBP refresh... I know.... it's still a long way...:rolleyes:
Macnoviz
Sep 14, 10:03 AM
Could they BE any more obvious ?
still, hoping for Core 2 MBP, not for me, but for a friend and "co-worker"
still, hoping for Core 2 MBP, not for me, but for a friend and "co-worker"
JayLenochiniMac
Apr 4, 12:57 PM
Handgun users (either for private use or professional use) are taught to shoot center mass. The head shot was most likely a stray round and not intentionally. This guy was probably aiming center mass.
How could you aim for the center mass not in the head if the person was sitting in a car (likely still firing at the guard while attempting to get away)? From article:
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a silver Acura that crashed while still inside the shopping center's parking lot, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. He appears to have been killed by a bullet that went through the passenger window, Chula Vista Police said.
How could you aim for the center mass not in the head if the person was sitting in a car (likely still firing at the guard while attempting to get away)? From article:
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a silver Acura that crashed while still inside the shopping center's parking lot, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. He appears to have been killed by a bullet that went through the passenger window, Chula Vista Police said.
