LightSpeed1
Mar 29, 02:21 PM
As far as windows phone market share passing iPhone ever - I'll believe that $#*% when I see it.
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 10:12 AM
I don't think that there's any data yet on failure rates and problems with the new Core 2 iMacs...
He is talking about reliability data from at least the last 10 years, Aiden...data you must have no clue about, of course...after all, Macs just started doing Windows, right? :rolleyes:
He is talking about reliability data from at least the last 10 years, Aiden...data you must have no clue about, of course...after all, Macs just started doing Windows, right? :rolleyes:
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 11:11 AM
LOL! That's the silliest thing I've seen on here in a long time.
I am glad you have enough knowledge to tell me why it is silly, instead of making a silly comment yourself.
I am glad you have enough knowledge to tell me why it is silly, instead of making a silly comment yourself.
rmwebs
Apr 28, 04:23 PM
Another nickel in the bank.
Image (http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/9/129023086802465617.jpg)
You do realize that this image could end up biting Apple in the butt? In 3 years time the iPad will be where the iPhone is now: Loosing some (not all) of its marketshare to the knockoffs.
Unless Apple has a new iToy (I.e not an MP3 player, phone or tablet) ready for say 3-4 years from now, they wont get any bigger than they now are.
Image (http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/9/129023086802465617.jpg)
You do realize that this image could end up biting Apple in the butt? In 3 years time the iPad will be where the iPhone is now: Loosing some (not all) of its marketshare to the knockoffs.
Unless Apple has a new iToy (I.e not an MP3 player, phone or tablet) ready for say 3-4 years from now, they wont get any bigger than they now are.
Popeye206
Apr 22, 05:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
The problem is, without an Application like iTunes and a DRM, Amazon has no way to manage licensed materials. So if they want to do something similar to Apple, they really can't. Yes, what you upload is assumed to be yours, but music you buy from Amazon is not managed at the user level by Amazon. So unless they reconcile your purchase history, they don't know what's what, so it would be open season on the Amazon side and I think that's not what the Labels like.
In this case, the Apple "closed system" has the advantage of knowing what's what and it seems like Apple is doing it right by getting the record companies on board with the concept before launching.
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
The problem is, without an Application like iTunes and a DRM, Amazon has no way to manage licensed materials. So if they want to do something similar to Apple, they really can't. Yes, what you upload is assumed to be yours, but music you buy from Amazon is not managed at the user level by Amazon. So unless they reconcile your purchase history, they don't know what's what, so it would be open season on the Amazon side and I think that's not what the Labels like.
In this case, the Apple "closed system" has the advantage of knowing what's what and it seems like Apple is doing it right by getting the record companies on board with the concept before launching.
Manic Mouse
Jul 19, 04:07 AM
The only problem with Conroe vs. Merom in an iMac is the heat production. I am sure it is possible to keep an iMac with a Conroe cool enough. What I think is very hard to achieve is to keep it cool and quiet at the same time. I have never, ever _heard_ the iMac in my office, and that is really nice.
Of course it would be possible to put something into the Energy Saver Preferences like a "Keep Quiet" option. If selected, processing power could be cut down when the iMac gets too hot to be cooled down without making much noise. You would still have the potential to get full performance if you choose so.
Hmmm, it's a tough one. But I think the price vs. performance of Conroe being so much better than Merom will mean that Apple will try their best to cram one into the iMac. It would mean a more powerful computer that's cheaper for Apple to produce, and it is a desktop after all.
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:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png
And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif
25 degrees celcius with speedstep...
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif
And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...
Of course it would be possible to put something into the Energy Saver Preferences like a "Keep Quiet" option. If selected, processing power could be cut down when the iMac gets too hot to be cooled down without making much noise. You would still have the potential to get full performance if you choose so.
Hmmm, it's a tough one. But I think the price vs. performance of Conroe being so much better than Merom will mean that Apple will try their best to cram one into the iMac. It would mean a more powerful computer that's cheaper for Apple to produce, and it is a desktop after all.
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:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png
And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif
25 degrees celcius with speedstep...
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif
And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...
shanmugam
Apr 30, 02:00 PM
Weren't they just updated in October? Yes it may be closer, but not for a while yet considering the last update was over a year. :rolleyes:
the sandy bridget turbo boost will give good CPU performance upgrade from current MBA
but with lower GPU performance
mostly more battery life also, so it is due for refresh as well, MBA is currently selling well, so will receive a nice upgrade cycle compared to the old MBAs cycles (one year minimum)
the sandy bridget turbo boost will give good CPU performance upgrade from current MBA
but with lower GPU performance
mostly more battery life also, so it is due for refresh as well, MBA is currently selling well, so will receive a nice upgrade cycle compared to the old MBAs cycles (one year minimum)
vincebio
Sep 26, 07:26 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
did you read the article above?
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
did you read the article above?
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
mygoldens
Mar 29, 01:05 PM
Ya, right ! :eek:
This guy must be a Windoze Fanboy!
This guy must be a Windoze Fanboy!
vincenz
Apr 20, 12:47 PM
Let's all wave and say hello, Big Brother.
Clive At Five
Sep 19, 02:08 PM
As stated by others already, this bodes very well for Apple signing other studios onto the plan. I would not be surprised one bit if we see it by the end of the month, even.
-Clive
-Clive
Peace
Sep 5, 05:36 PM
I never said the streaming isn't possible. I just said there isn't a HARDWARE device like the airport that makes this possible without a computer.
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
blondepianist
Mar 29, 11:28 AM
:confused:For that to happen, people would have to want to buy a Windows phone... I'm pretty sure hardly anyone I know even realizes that the platform has undergone a major revamp recently.
My personal opinion is that WP7 is a decent OS, but I just don't see this being a possibility with the meager selection in WP7 software.
My personal opinion is that WP7 is a decent OS, but I just don't see this being a possibility with the meager selection in WP7 software.
technicolor
Sep 4, 03:14 PM
All I know is, I will be buying whatever it is they have for sale.
I want one of each:D
I want one of each:D
Consultant
Apr 11, 02:10 AM
What I don't get is why can't Apple enable any iOS device (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) as an Airplay target device? Obviously iOS supports it as Apple TV can be a target for Airplay from iTunes.
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
jessica.
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Funny how people are waffle so easily when it comes to censorship.
rstansby
Nov 13, 01:52 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.
complexcommunic
Mar 23, 04:15 PM
Censorship! Don't do it, Apple!
NickFalk
Apr 29, 08:28 AM
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center.
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
jz1492
Nov 13, 04:09 PM
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
I agree with that. ;)
Yet, that is not the case this time, or I'd say, for the majority of rejections. Apple most of the time allows you to make the necessary changes, as odd as they may seem.
I agree with that. ;)
Yet, that is not the case this time, or I'd say, for the majority of rejections. Apple most of the time allows you to make the necessary changes, as odd as they may seem.
Philberttheduck
Sep 4, 09:22 PM
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
LOLLLLLLL Can we just say quote of the year right there? Honestly got me lol. Props to you.
I hope to hell that Apple releases a media server (Tivo on steroids sounds right) with all the necessary inputs and outputs. Honestly, that would justify me getting my parents to get another mac in the household. :-)
But if this new product turns out to be a streaming player, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be MUCH more happy if they released a 80+GB (preferably 120) for 450 bucks 4.5" WS. Streaming portable video player is kinda unnecessary because, like many of you have mentioned before, if you can watch it on your 20" LCD screen why settle for 3-4"? Only time I use streaming music on my PSP is taking a crap or shower. The PSP isn't really loud but I turn off my fan thing and it's more than adequate (I'm not expecting hi-def surround sound while I sing to my favorite GN'R song).
Hell, throw in the idea of an iPhone. Very unlikely but if they release the movie store they better release that full screen iPod. I'm waiting Apple...
iToilet has the VoiceOver option available to congratulate you when your crap falls in. Or there's some script that plays a clip/song when you successfully flush the toilet without it getting clogged. OK i'm done.
LOLLLLLLL Can we just say quote of the year right there? Honestly got me lol. Props to you.
I hope to hell that Apple releases a media server (Tivo on steroids sounds right) with all the necessary inputs and outputs. Honestly, that would justify me getting my parents to get another mac in the household. :-)
But if this new product turns out to be a streaming player, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be MUCH more happy if they released a 80+GB (preferably 120) for 450 bucks 4.5" WS. Streaming portable video player is kinda unnecessary because, like many of you have mentioned before, if you can watch it on your 20" LCD screen why settle for 3-4"? Only time I use streaming music on my PSP is taking a crap or shower. The PSP isn't really loud but I turn off my fan thing and it's more than adequate (I'm not expecting hi-def surround sound while I sing to my favorite GN'R song).
Hell, throw in the idea of an iPhone. Very unlikely but if they release the movie store they better release that full screen iPod. I'm waiting Apple...
iToilet has the VoiceOver option available to congratulate you when your crap falls in. Or there's some script that plays a clip/song when you successfully flush the toilet without it getting clogged. OK i'm done.
nem3015
Aug 31, 03:50 PM
If there is a Special Event then we might see the new Ipod Video and maybe the Itunes Movie Store.
To go a little crazy, maybe the Media Center.
Updates for MacMini and Laptops at this time will be a simple Tuesday update on Apple's site. I see no reason to have an Special Event for that.
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
To go a little crazy, maybe the Media Center.
Updates for MacMini and Laptops at this time will be a simple Tuesday update on Apple's site. I see no reason to have an Special Event for that.
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
ctdonath
Mar 23, 08:07 AM
What ThunderPort devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
No comments:
Post a Comment