Tike1994
Mar 22, 01:48 PM
Finally some Mac news. I've been waiting since Christmas to get my first Mac desktop. All my iOS devices will finally have a Mac to connect to!!
Manic Mouse
Sep 12, 07:08 AM
BTW, What is with all the Anti Mini Mac Pro hostility??? "I'm sorry, you can't have a Quad 2.67 Ghz CPU and a top of the line graphics card. I'm sure a Mac Mini will more than fulfil your needs, with its Dual 1.86 Ghz Yonah processor and Integrated Graphics. As long as you de-emphasize on productivity, you should find a Mac Mini is plenty fast enough. After all, Apple is perfect, and anything they don't offer should be wanted by you."
Indeed. It's as if there's something wrong with asking for something you want. How dare we suggest the Apple lineup isn't perfect!
Indeed. It's as if there's something wrong with asking for something you want. How dare we suggest the Apple lineup isn't perfect!
BWhaler
Aug 28, 10:59 PM
I really hope it takes until november or december. Watching you all squirm and making positive posts predicting a swift release for your own peace of mind is entertaining, and probably educational.
mmmm...nothing like a little troll late in the evening.
Go back to DellRocksTheWorld.com or AmigaForever.com or RollYourOwnPC.com or whatever...
And have a nice day. :)
mmmm...nothing like a little troll late in the evening.
Go back to DellRocksTheWorld.com or AmigaForever.com or RollYourOwnPC.com or whatever...
And have a nice day. :)
.jpg "38. close up)")
thworple
Oct 27, 10:30 AM
MacWorld Quote:
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
milo
Jul 17, 11:54 AM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
wlh99
Apr 20, 10:20 AM
Section 4b of the software license agreement explains it all:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
So does turning of Locations Services stop the data collection, or just stop applications from accessing it?
Does turning of Location services delete data already in the file?
I guess it works both ways, if accused of a crime you didn't commit, bring your phone to work and prove you were not their. And if you are going to commit a crime, leave your phone at home.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
So does turning of Locations Services stop the data collection, or just stop applications from accessing it?
Does turning of Location services delete data already in the file?
I guess it works both ways, if accused of a crime you didn't commit, bring your phone to work and prove you were not their. And if you are going to commit a crime, leave your phone at home.
cube
Apr 22, 11:52 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
richard4339
Sep 12, 02:11 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
From what I saw in the presentation stuff, 5G iPods get everything software related; movies, gapless playback, and games.
From what I saw in the presentation stuff, 5G iPods get everything software related; movies, gapless playback, and games.
karthi
Sep 19, 04:02 PM
I thought TV shows in iTunes won't be a hit, why would any one need to pay $1.99 for the stuff, that is already available in cable, sat, Tivo, DVD's, Block buster, feely on the air in SDTV/HDTV, etc.. and all viewable on big screen TV.:confused:
I never bought any TV shows on iTunes, as I use DVR. I see myself buying online movie downloads, mainly for convenience and the fact that it is available on the same day as DVD.:) . Even though blockbuster is less than 5 min away, it will be at least 45 min trip. Of course I will still be renting/buying DVD's.
One more thing many forget about iTV ( Apple soon come with a real name), is that , it is not just for movies, I would happily pay third of its price just to have music and photos on my receiver and TV with the front row screen/remote.
I never bought any TV shows on iTunes, as I use DVR. I see myself buying online movie downloads, mainly for convenience and the fact that it is available on the same day as DVD.:) . Even though blockbuster is less than 5 min away, it will be at least 45 min trip. Of course I will still be renting/buying DVD's.
One more thing many forget about iTV ( Apple soon come with a real name), is that , it is not just for movies, I would happily pay third of its price just to have music and photos on my receiver and TV with the front row screen/remote.
evilgEEk
Oct 12, 01:09 PM
A red nano would look pretty hot. That might just be enough motivation for me to finally buy one.
Of course convincing the wife to let me buy one, now that's different. ;)
Of course convincing the wife to let me buy one, now that's different. ;)
asxtb
Sep 5, 07:56 AM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 08:28 PM
As has been mentioned the typical patent litigation is in the $5-$10 M range paid to the attorneys. With the main lawsuit and 5 countersuits they could have made a big dent in that $100M. Even when you have a large legal staff, litigation is usually handled by outside firms that specialize in those kinds of trials. With 32 million iPods sold in 2005 even a $3 licensing fee (~1% on average is not an atypical licensing fee) you'd easily surpass $100M if you were planning to sell iPods for more than 1 more year. A lump sum is preferable.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
r00fus
May 4, 12:21 PM
Wow, the dual screen output is what could some day push me over the edge. A 27" display + 2 27" Apple screens either side sounds pretty nice. Still not enough to make me part with my 30" ACD right now though.
You do realize you can do almost the same thing (not sure about resolutions) with USB2 displaylink adapters?
My lowly 2007 Santa Rosa MBP can handle this fine with one 22" monitor using the old EVGA UVPlus... I even run it over a hub that also does keyboard, mouse and iphone cradle. Slight delay, no stutter, nothing. videos play fine (never tried full screen, but it's my work computer, so no need for that).
You do realize you can do almost the same thing (not sure about resolutions) with USB2 displaylink adapters?
My lowly 2007 Santa Rosa MBP can handle this fine with one 22" monitor using the old EVGA UVPlus... I even run it over a hub that also does keyboard, mouse and iphone cradle. Slight delay, no stutter, nothing. videos play fine (never tried full screen, but it's my work computer, so no need for that).
twoodcc
Aug 31, 01:27 PM
all we can do is hope and pray
macenforcer
Sep 12, 02:24 PM
let the whining begin
I hate when a smarta$$ lays in with this post. We'll whine if we want to. YEAH!
I hate when a smarta$$ lays in with this post. We'll whine if we want to. YEAH!
Jaro65
May 3, 10:48 AM
Dual ports should have been on the notebooks as well.
At least we can daisy chain.
At least we can daisy chain.
vannote
Nov 13, 06:44 PM
Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
lsvtecjohn3
Apr 28, 03:22 PM
Sad day for dem boys in Redmond
rdowns
Aug 31, 04:46 PM
September 12 SteveNote. Well I must have posted that phrase scores of times earlier this year - just didn't think it would be in San Francisco instead of Paris. All the better. Perfect ending to a wonderful Summer 2006.
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Pass the doobie
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Pass the doobie
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:37 AM
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Not sure this will completely stop piracy, but it will further deter it. However if you can store it on a drive without any sort of DRM. This service will do nothing for piracy.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Not sure this will completely stop piracy, but it will further deter it. However if you can store it on a drive without any sort of DRM. This service will do nothing for piracy.
altquark
Apr 25, 01:19 PM
This just threw a spanner into my plans !
I've got a late 2007 non-unibody MBP - the "ultimate" which I've been updating as much as possible (Hybrid SSD 512Gb drive, 4Gb memory, etc etc) - I love my MBP but my applecare warranty just ran out last month. Which, I thought, was plenty timely so I could get the new MBP that just refreshed - quad core, 16Gb RAM seems like a LOT more power !
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
My current MBP is working great. The keyboard has a sticky "D" key, but apart from that, its been the best laptop I've ever owned, and the second longest I've owned before a refresh (the prior record holder was a Sony Vaio PCG-V505BX which I used/upgraded/refreshed a full 5 years before needing to upgrade !)
So what do I do ? I wasn't planning on buying the MBP until next month, after I got back from vacation...
I've got a late 2007 non-unibody MBP - the "ultimate" which I've been updating as much as possible (Hybrid SSD 512Gb drive, 4Gb memory, etc etc) - I love my MBP but my applecare warranty just ran out last month. Which, I thought, was plenty timely so I could get the new MBP that just refreshed - quad core, 16Gb RAM seems like a LOT more power !
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
My current MBP is working great. The keyboard has a sticky "D" key, but apart from that, its been the best laptop I've ever owned, and the second longest I've owned before a refresh (the prior record holder was a Sony Vaio PCG-V505BX which I used/upgraded/refreshed a full 5 years before needing to upgrade !)
So what do I do ? I wasn't planning on buying the MBP until next month, after I got back from vacation...
jackaninny
Mar 29, 12:41 PM
I find it also humorous the number of people in this forum who are positive that this WON'T happen, and don't think THAT is a prediction. ;)
Tony
Big difference in getting paid to do a bad job and doing it for free.
Tony
Big difference in getting paid to do a bad job and doing it for free.
justflie
Sep 26, 09:25 AM
You know, I'm thinking people really want an iPhone. And I'm also thinking that they want it so bad they won't even consider the source of this information.
Usually, a rumor like this wouldn't get three pages of comments without somebody mentioning that this story comes from ThinkSecret. In case you're new here, MR readers have a habbit of panning ThinkSecret. It's worse than panning really, it's more like slaughtering any news that comes from ThinkSecret.
It's fun to watch members battle out mobile providers.
Ford! No, Chevy!
I mean...
Sony! No, Sony sucks, buy Panasonic.
I mean...
Verizon! Nooooooo, Verizon drips off donkey b*lls, go with Cingular!
You folk crack me up. Thank you.
HAHA! I was reading all of this and, at about the 2nd page, I thought the same thing as you did. ThinkSecret has really sucked at life lately, they probably got this rumor wrong. And besides, I want Verizon anyways.
Usually, a rumor like this wouldn't get three pages of comments without somebody mentioning that this story comes from ThinkSecret. In case you're new here, MR readers have a habbit of panning ThinkSecret. It's worse than panning really, it's more like slaughtering any news that comes from ThinkSecret.
It's fun to watch members battle out mobile providers.
Ford! No, Chevy!
I mean...
Sony! No, Sony sucks, buy Panasonic.
I mean...
Verizon! Nooooooo, Verizon drips off donkey b*lls, go with Cingular!
You folk crack me up. Thank you.
HAHA! I was reading all of this and, at about the 2nd page, I thought the same thing as you did. ThinkSecret has really sucked at life lately, they probably got this rumor wrong. And besides, I want Verizon anyways.
tabaczka
Sep 5, 02:10 PM
I myself am not too excited by this...
An overpriced movie store doesn't seem like something i would ever use.
But whatever they have in their bag of tricks for streaming may prove to be worth taking a look at.
An overpriced movie store doesn't seem like something i would ever use.
But whatever they have in their bag of tricks for streaming may prove to be worth taking a look at.