ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 08:01 AM
C2D MBPs available for ordering now!
I have just placed my order for a new Macbook Pro with a Core 2 Duo, I can't wait :D
I have just placed my order for a new Macbook Pro with a Core 2 Duo, I can't wait :D
LarryC
Apr 30, 04:04 PM
Even with all of the debates that are going on in this thread, I am excited about this update. I have been waiting for the new iMac. I am currently using a 1.42GHz eMac G4 that I purchased new in ~ 2005. It still runs great and I have no complaints with it. I do believe that I will still wait for the early issues that come with any new machine to be resolved and for the newest version of OS X.
mkrishnan
Sep 19, 01:35 PM
Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.
segfaultdotorg
May 3, 11:38 AM
Great update� waiting for the usual suspects to come around to list any [unreasonable] cons :p�
No coupon for a free Lion upgrade. Lame.
No coupon for a free Lion upgrade. Lame.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 10:22 PM
Did you forget that Microsoft is what got the pc world to where it is today?
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
QCassidy352
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
I am quoting myself! arn went ahead and added to question mark to the title.
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
Farplaner
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I thought this was an FCC mandate (to track GPS information for cellphones) after 9/11. The real issue is that this is not encrypted in anyway so anybody can get the information if they have access to the file.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
treblah
Aug 23, 05:33 PM
So dose this mean ms can sue apple if they decided to use wifi in ipods ????
No. (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=745)
No. (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=745)
mmcc
Apr 22, 09:01 AM
go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
Ok, I will complain. ;) I stopped using Pandora on my iPhone when AT&T began offering incentives to decrease 3G bandwidth usage (i.e. lower monthly bills).
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
Ok, I will complain. ;) I stopped using Pandora on my iPhone when AT&T began offering incentives to decrease 3G bandwidth usage (i.e. lower monthly bills).
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:35 PM
Ahhh, its all good folks. Juiceduece and I just disagree:) No worries! Actually for the record...Im glad Apple went with the 27inch 1440p monitor (ive always been a sucker for 16:9). I just think the 24 wasnt "useless"...thats all. :D
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:53 PM
I don't think that's sad.
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
ValSalva
Apr 25, 05:29 PM
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
sully677
May 1, 12:11 AM
Any news about a 24in option?
/Moke
Mar 29, 02:29 PM
No. Looser and looser = extra extra baggy! :D
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:47 AM
It is true, its all hearsay until Apple dishes out details. Without knowing the details the potential paths that this can take is what is causing people to be concerned. Personally, I believe that it will be some kind of backup locker to what you have. Like you can pick and choose what songs you want in the cloud and any iTunes purchases will have a copy there automatically. However, I'm just concerned that it might be the idea of replacing local storage. Simply put, its not time yet for that. Too many things will hamper happy adoption of such ideas.
w00master
Nov 14, 12:44 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"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."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"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."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
jonnysods
Apr 25, 01:14 PM
Sign me up!
I love the current design, but I'm always excited about the future.
I love the current design, but I'm always excited about the future.
ViviUO
Apr 25, 01:07 PM
Black as a color option, please.
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
MisterK
Apr 30, 04:57 PM
The last 27" i7 iMac is the best computer I've ever bought. I went pretty full-out. Got 2 hard drives including an SSD and went for full-speed with 8GB of RAM. I also have my 30" Cinema Display attached. Absolutely couldn't be happier. Best work-horse ever!
Umbongo
Mar 23, 01:01 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
August 2006
January 2008 - 17 months later
March 2009 - 14 months later
July 2010 - 16 months later
While spring is possible the processors are to be launched in Q4. It is more likely to be under 18 months, but there is nothing out of the ordinary. Only the 2010 models seemed to be on Apple's time line rather than Intels.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
They have actually been the first to be updated for most of the time because Intel launched new technology on these platforms first. First to get 65nm Core 2 processor technology, first to get 45nm Penryn Core 2, first to get Nehalem (Core i5/i7). If Apple had updated on time in 2010 they'd have been first then to get Westmere (Apple released 4 months after the processor launch). Intel have changed their release schedule from enthusiast and Enterprise coming first with the move to Sandy Bridge, mostly because the benefits are more to the mobile market due to power savings.
August 2006
January 2008 - 17 months later
March 2009 - 14 months later
July 2010 - 16 months later
While spring is possible the processors are to be launched in Q4. It is more likely to be under 18 months, but there is nothing out of the ordinary. Only the 2010 models seemed to be on Apple's time line rather than Intels.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
They have actually been the first to be updated for most of the time because Intel launched new technology on these platforms first. First to get 65nm Core 2 processor technology, first to get 45nm Penryn Core 2, first to get Nehalem (Core i5/i7). If Apple had updated on time in 2010 they'd have been first then to get Westmere (Apple released 4 months after the processor launch). Intel have changed their release schedule from enthusiast and Enterprise coming first with the move to Sandy Bridge, mostly because the benefits are more to the mobile market due to power savings.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 10:00 AM
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 5, 08:08 PM
Showtime may be a two track movie store. One track to rent or purchase movies for the 'big screen' tv, computer monitors. A second track to download movies in a much smaller format specifically for the new "Showtime iPod." That way, movies become very portable and easy/fast download for iPod, and a much longer download for the "Apple Movie Machine" for tv/computer?
Could be a really neat show and tell....
Could be a really neat show and tell....
mbrannon47
Apr 22, 01:59 AM
I think it's Eddy Cue not Eddie.