TigerWoodsIV
Mar 23, 05:56 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
dernhelm
Sep 19, 01:35 PM
In addition, Iger said the company expects over $50 million in revenue over the first year of the program
Hmm. Lets see $1M in a week, 52 weeks in a year, yup - that's about $50M. Wow - that dude is a genius!
Hmm. Lets see $1M in a week, 52 weeks in a year, yup - that's about $50M. Wow - that dude is a genius!
nxent
Sep 5, 06:37 PM
My nano is already on eBay awaiting a nice metal clad 8GB version, I hope they do an andonised black one though to match my other gadgets.
already on ebay? nice. now you don't have to worry too much about it depreciating in value with apple's new product. i've been holding out on a new ipod to see what devilry they come up with this time. i take it the movies on itunes will be 'download to own'?
already on ebay? nice. now you don't have to worry too much about it depreciating in value with apple's new product. i've been holding out on a new ipod to see what devilry they come up with this time. i take it the movies on itunes will be 'download to own'?
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 04:52 PM
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
RacerX
Aug 23, 08:53 PM
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1.Well, looking at the rough numbers, this settlement has Apple paying about $1.70 for every iPod ever sold.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
rtheb
Apr 30, 01:28 PM
Kind of makes you feel really sad for Steve and Bill...
$5,000,000,000.00 :eek:
$5,000,000,000.00 :eek:
MacFan782040
Sep 5, 02:58 PM
iTunes Movie Store should be rental only.
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
j-traxx
Apr 11, 11:27 AM
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)
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
Eidorian
Jul 15, 05:21 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?The CPU is possible but you probably wouldn't want to it yourself. The hard drive is easier. The video card would require an entire logic board replacement.
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?The CPU is possible but you probably wouldn't want to it yourself. The hard drive is easier. The video card would require an entire logic board replacement.
MattyMac
Aug 23, 05:13 PM
Who's Creative? :rolleyes:
DRewPi
Sep 3, 05:57 AM
Is Apple goin to pull out several tuesday upgrades like the 5th, the 12th, and so on .... ???? that should be very nice for us .... !!! macusers :D :cool: ;)
generik
Aug 28, 10:52 PM
Now mind you, I say this as an investor, not as an enthusiast.
Go sell your Apple shares then, Apple is so going to cry over your few thousand dollars... NOT
Go sell your Apple shares then, Apple is so going to cry over your few thousand dollars... NOT
Counterfit
Oct 27, 03:53 PM
i mean isnt it normal in the US to have an 8litre car? here <2 Litre is normal:D
Uh, 8 liters is huge ANYWHERE. Aside from trucks, the biggest production engine I can find in a sedan from a U.S. company is the 6.1L Hemi in the Dodge Charger/Magnum/Chrysler 300C SRT8, and those are still big by U.S. standards. The vast majority of engines are sub 5L, and even most of those are under 4L.
Uh, 8 liters is huge ANYWHERE. Aside from trucks, the biggest production engine I can find in a sedan from a U.S. company is the 6.1L Hemi in the Dodge Charger/Magnum/Chrysler 300C SRT8, and those are still big by U.S. standards. The vast majority of engines are sub 5L, and even most of those are under 4L.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
vi2867
Oct 12, 01:02 PM
http://static.flickr.com/121/267917812_57f5b710af.jpg?v=0
Since there are no formal announcements schedule. Apple will just bring down the store, and the new products will appear.
They've recently done this when they announced the Mac Book, and the updated iMac Core 2 Duo's...
Apple always keeps us on the edge, because we just don't know how they will announce their new products...
Since there are no formal announcements schedule. Apple will just bring down the store, and the new products will appear.
They've recently done this when they announced the Mac Book, and the updated iMac Core 2 Duo's...
Apple always keeps us on the edge, because we just don't know how they will announce their new products...
z4n3
Apr 20, 10:56 AM
I do not seem to have this file! :D
guess there are some users that are safe....
guess there are some users that are safe....
ChazUK
Apr 19, 07:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
I doubt it considering the Nortel bid. Apple could hit Google hard now and be in a decent position if they tried now.
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
I doubt it considering the Nortel bid. Apple could hit Google hard now and be in a decent position if they tried now.
kresh
Aug 29, 02:01 AM
Apple always claims that Macs are better than PCs. Dell and HP aren't making those same claims. I've never heard either company publicly dump on Apple. Apple dumps on them on TV all the time.
So Michael Dell publicly stating that Steve Jobs should close the doors and return the money to the investors is not dumping?
And which tv ad is the one where Apple is dumping on Dell or HP? I must have missed that one, I would like to see it too!
So Michael Dell publicly stating that Steve Jobs should close the doors and return the money to the investors is not dumping?
And which tv ad is the one where Apple is dumping on Dell or HP? I must have missed that one, I would like to see it too!
jwdsail
Sep 16, 09:49 AM
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
So a quad-band gsm iPhone based on the new clip shuffle? Perfect! Speaker phone mode or BT headset .. voice activated.. Sync the phone number and voice dialing through an updated AddressBook. Perfect!
;-)
jwd
http://www.vocera.com/
So a quad-band gsm iPhone based on the new clip shuffle? Perfect! Speaker phone mode or BT headset .. voice activated.. Sync the phone number and voice dialing through an updated AddressBook. Perfect!
;-)
jwd
alent1234
Apr 22, 08:06 AM
You'll go nutz in couple decades when our CPU's aren't even in our homes anymore. Start to get used to the idea of "cloud" slowly :)
not going to happen
the entire history of computing is giving more power to more people. the cloud has always been there, even with the first PC's. but the trend is to give more features to less powerful devices
not going to happen
the entire history of computing is giving more power to more people. the cloud has always been there, even with the first PC's. but the trend is to give more features to less powerful devices
MattInOz
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
cvaldes
Mar 22, 02:02 PM
What about the Mini?
No one knows. These are just rumors anyhow. The absence of Mac mini rumors means nothing.
In terms of CPU and graphics, the Mac mini is most similar to the low-end MacBook rather than the iMac.
No one knows. These are just rumors anyhow. The absence of Mac mini rumors means nothing.
In terms of CPU and graphics, the Mac mini is most similar to the low-end MacBook rather than the iMac.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 10:48 AM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
while they can not break out of existing deals it can effect future deals.
As for the current agreement when things like Apple sueing Samsung happens and Samsung is a major supplier this is when shipments get delayed or start arriving late. Apple falls to down on the list as clients that are important when supplies run short.
If Apple needs a rush order guess what not going to happen. Generally you do not want to piss off your big supplier because they can cause you a world of problems with out breaking any contract.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
while they can not break out of existing deals it can effect future deals.
As for the current agreement when things like Apple sueing Samsung happens and Samsung is a major supplier this is when shipments get delayed or start arriving late. Apple falls to down on the list as clients that are important when supplies run short.
If Apple needs a rush order guess what not going to happen. Generally you do not want to piss off your big supplier because they can cause you a world of problems with out breaking any contract.
THX1139
Jul 20, 05:15 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals. At this time, the only thing that would come close to replacing the current Quad would be Woodcrest and that's why I mentioned a possiblity for a 3GHZ Woodie in the lineup. I do see a need for a Woodcrest Quad as a professional work station, now and in the future... I just don't see why they would need to put Woodcrest in the complete line-up. Not sure how Kentsfield would play into the long term plan. However, I see nothing wrong with using Conroe in the middle and bottom (non Quad) machines if those are going to continue. Yea, everyone seems to want Quad across the board, but for some people that would be overkill and overly expensive. If you are a web developer or motion graphics designer working at web resolutions, do you need a Woodcrest Quad? Once the currently shipping duals are gone, are we going to be forced with choosing between Woodcrest in a tower... or an iMac or mini?
Maybe it all boils down to the need for Apple to split the lineup as been suggested in other threads. They should have a couple medium towers with Conroe (call them Macs) and then 2 or 3 high-end workstations that are priced accordingly for the Macpro line. I would love to get a Quad Woodcrest, but for the most part, it would be over-kill. Most professional work I do can be done on a single chip / dual core.
It's going to be interesting to see what direction Apple reveals next month. I still think it's strange that Apple hasn't announced Woodcrest if they are indeed going with that solution. Why wait for WWDC if the chips are ready?
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals. At this time, the only thing that would come close to replacing the current Quad would be Woodcrest and that's why I mentioned a possiblity for a 3GHZ Woodie in the lineup. I do see a need for a Woodcrest Quad as a professional work station, now and in the future... I just don't see why they would need to put Woodcrest in the complete line-up. Not sure how Kentsfield would play into the long term plan. However, I see nothing wrong with using Conroe in the middle and bottom (non Quad) machines if those are going to continue. Yea, everyone seems to want Quad across the board, but for some people that would be overkill and overly expensive. If you are a web developer or motion graphics designer working at web resolutions, do you need a Woodcrest Quad? Once the currently shipping duals are gone, are we going to be forced with choosing between Woodcrest in a tower... or an iMac or mini?
Maybe it all boils down to the need for Apple to split the lineup as been suggested in other threads. They should have a couple medium towers with Conroe (call them Macs) and then 2 or 3 high-end workstations that are priced accordingly for the Macpro line. I would love to get a Quad Woodcrest, but for the most part, it would be over-kill. Most professional work I do can be done on a single chip / dual core.
It's going to be interesting to see what direction Apple reveals next month. I still think it's strange that Apple hasn't announced Woodcrest if they are indeed going with that solution. Why wait for WWDC if the chips are ready?
0 comments:
Post a Comment