AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 05:47 PM
Well thank you Steve Balmer. Why in the hell did Gates left him in charge I never will understand.
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
And from this post one can venture a guess as to which kind you are.
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
And from this post one can venture a guess as to which kind you are.
rockosmodurnlif
Apr 4, 12:40 PM
Are iDevices worth a life? The criminals think they are because they brought guns.
BRLawyer
Sep 5, 01:11 PM
It will be either one of two things:
1 - ONLY the iTMS Movie Store and perhaps updated Nanos;
2 - The BIG ONE, the EARTHQUAKE we've been all waiting for...
2a - iTMS Movie Store;
2b - updated Nanos and iPods;
2c - 23" iMac Special DVR Edition with Merom;
2d - Wireless music sharing device for the Nanos as shown by the FCC filing;
see https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=661453&native_or_pdf=pdf
2e - Updated MBs and MBPs.
Oh boy...better burn my credit card... ;)
1 - ONLY the iTMS Movie Store and perhaps updated Nanos;
2 - The BIG ONE, the EARTHQUAKE we've been all waiting for...
2a - iTMS Movie Store;
2b - updated Nanos and iPods;
2c - 23" iMac Special DVR Edition with Merom;
2d - Wireless music sharing device for the Nanos as shown by the FCC filing;
see https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=661453&native_or_pdf=pdf
2e - Updated MBs and MBPs.
Oh boy...better burn my credit card... ;)
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 12:04 PM
Think we've moved on some what from the crappy cameras in phones
My latest phone has a 3.2 MP cam - with optical zoom.
In fact - its better than my camera was last year!
A camera isnt only about MP. The weakest link of the camera in phones is the optics. You just cant get good pics from a camera phone due to the limited formfactor, even if you had 3200 MP.
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
My latest phone has a 3.2 MP cam - with optical zoom.
In fact - its better than my camera was last year!
A camera isnt only about MP. The weakest link of the camera in phones is the optics. You just cant get good pics from a camera phone due to the limited formfactor, even if you had 3200 MP.
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
BornAgainMac
Sep 15, 05:48 PM
I thought 10 Mega Pixels were possible with some tech that is suppose to arrive at the end of this year for phones.
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone where you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone where you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 05:43 PM
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
It may be a bookkeeping trick, but it's considered part of Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). The IRS and the SEC certainly doesn't have problem with it and ammorization is actually encouraged. Apple used the same method to record the $250 million cash investment in flash memory plants last year, as well as the $400 million it is setting aside for the new Cupertino campus. Neither of those big cash outlays really affected their profit recording.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
Well, despite my strong opinions, I have to again agree with you that only time will tell who was the real winner here.
My predictions are
1) Microsoft gets hit with a patent infringement lawsuit and settles rather quickly and
2) Creative exits the player business because it will be squeezed by the iPod and Zune from above, and Sandisk and iRiver from below. The field will just be too crowded with Zune. Because no matter how much money Zune will lose in the first few years, Microsoft will no doubt keep it afloat rather than cede defeat in this space. That might help Zune to take away some share away from the iPod eventually, but not before Zune eats the bulk of Creative's and Sandisk's share first. Creative has to be thinking about whether continuing to pour R&D and marketing into players is worth it with Microsoft competing directly against them. My guess it they'll bail as soon as they are able.
But again, only time will tell. :)
It may be a bookkeeping trick, but it's considered part of Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). The IRS and the SEC certainly doesn't have problem with it and ammorization is actually encouraged. Apple used the same method to record the $250 million cash investment in flash memory plants last year, as well as the $400 million it is setting aside for the new Cupertino campus. Neither of those big cash outlays really affected their profit recording.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
Well, despite my strong opinions, I have to again agree with you that only time will tell who was the real winner here.
My predictions are
1) Microsoft gets hit with a patent infringement lawsuit and settles rather quickly and
2) Creative exits the player business because it will be squeezed by the iPod and Zune from above, and Sandisk and iRiver from below. The field will just be too crowded with Zune. Because no matter how much money Zune will lose in the first few years, Microsoft will no doubt keep it afloat rather than cede defeat in this space. That might help Zune to take away some share away from the iPod eventually, but not before Zune eats the bulk of Creative's and Sandisk's share first. Creative has to be thinking about whether continuing to pour R&D and marketing into players is worth it with Microsoft competing directly against them. My guess it they'll bail as soon as they are able.
But again, only time will tell. :)
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:26 AM
I pity the children of the future when I think back to how I am my friends used to swap Video's, CD's and Computer games with each other, as we only had enough Birthday/Christmas money to afford to buy so much, so we had great fun and enjoyment swapping what we had between friends.
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
MacNewsFix
Apr 19, 09:15 AM
Many people want to buy a phone that looks like an iPhone, but are willing to buy a Samsung phone as long as it looks the same. Yes, that is a stupid reason to buy a phone, but some people are like that. Apple thinks that all those people should have to buy the real thing.
And some people base their decision on how nice a phone looks, and they think the iPhone looks nice, and since the Samsung phone looks the same, they think that one looks nice as well. These people might buy a Samsung phone because Apple put lots of effort into designing a nice looking phone, and Samsung just copied it. In Germany, that would fall straight under "unfair competition" and would be blocked for that reason; if one company spends lots of money developing a product and another company just copies it, that is "unfair competition".
+1
While I didn't buy my HTC Android because it "looked nice," I did buy it because it was the most iPhone-like phone experience at Sprint at the time. I now pay for that decision everyday (iOS 1.0 puts Android 2.2 to shame) and cannot wait for my contract to be over. Steve Jobs would put someone's head on a pike in front of 1 Infinite Loop if Apple ever released an OS this half-baked. Say what you will about Apple's walled garden, but the Android market is more like a flea market complete with grifters. I've given up buying apps after too many that caused frequent crashes.
Verizon iPhone 5, you cannot arrive soon enough.
And some people base their decision on how nice a phone looks, and they think the iPhone looks nice, and since the Samsung phone looks the same, they think that one looks nice as well. These people might buy a Samsung phone because Apple put lots of effort into designing a nice looking phone, and Samsung just copied it. In Germany, that would fall straight under "unfair competition" and would be blocked for that reason; if one company spends lots of money developing a product and another company just copies it, that is "unfair competition".
+1
While I didn't buy my HTC Android because it "looked nice," I did buy it because it was the most iPhone-like phone experience at Sprint at the time. I now pay for that decision everyday (iOS 1.0 puts Android 2.2 to shame) and cannot wait for my contract to be over. Steve Jobs would put someone's head on a pike in front of 1 Infinite Loop if Apple ever released an OS this half-baked. Say what you will about Apple's walled garden, but the Android market is more like a flea market complete with grifters. I've given up buying apps after too many that caused frequent crashes.
Verizon iPhone 5, you cannot arrive soon enough.
MegaSignal
Sep 15, 05:59 PM
the ipod wasn't a ground up design either...
...now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
...now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
*LTD*
Apr 30, 01:12 PM
Apple's market share is growing but the fact that they supposedly (according to other posts) sell 90% of the computers that cost more than $1000 indicates that they are never going to really own the *********, lowest end of the market.
fixed.
All you need is the cream of the market. And everyone else tries to follow.
Apple's penalty for losing the market to cheap box assemblers hawking Windows:
The most profitable PC maker in the world, that is the Gold Standard of personal computing with Macs + OS X.
I don't see the problem. Seems SJ made the right choice from the very beginning by using a closed licensing model. Look at the amazing differentiation between Apple and Everyone Else. And others are trying that EXACT SAME differentiation (but without the guts to actually go all-in with it) and losing. Check out the failed Dell Adamo line. Dell *tried* to Apple-ify the experience. Except for the fact that they had nothing to do with the very company that actually makes the OS it's supposed to run, other than a licensing agreement. It doesn't work that way.
Now HP is trying it with WebOS. But Im not sure if they know how "to say 'no' to a thousand things and say 'yes' to that one special idea." It's all based on philosophy and attitude when you envision how everyday folks are supposed to interact with tech. Most tech companies out there don't have a grasp on it.
fixed.
All you need is the cream of the market. And everyone else tries to follow.
Apple's penalty for losing the market to cheap box assemblers hawking Windows:
The most profitable PC maker in the world, that is the Gold Standard of personal computing with Macs + OS X.
I don't see the problem. Seems SJ made the right choice from the very beginning by using a closed licensing model. Look at the amazing differentiation between Apple and Everyone Else. And others are trying that EXACT SAME differentiation (but without the guts to actually go all-in with it) and losing. Check out the failed Dell Adamo line. Dell *tried* to Apple-ify the experience. Except for the fact that they had nothing to do with the very company that actually makes the OS it's supposed to run, other than a licensing agreement. It doesn't work that way.
Now HP is trying it with WebOS. But Im not sure if they know how "to say 'no' to a thousand things and say 'yes' to that one special idea." It's all based on philosophy and attitude when you envision how everyday folks are supposed to interact with tech. Most tech companies out there don't have a grasp on it.
SPUY767
Aug 23, 09:44 PM
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Peikko
Apr 30, 08:33 PM
MSFT has not had a real hit in forever.
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
jjhny
Mar 23, 06:32 PM
Lets leave these apps alone and put the Senators in jail.
Best statement in this thread!
Best statement in this thread!
alust2013
Apr 25, 12:00 AM
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
-Don
There's no such thing as being safe driving 25 above the limit. I'm not the type of person to slow people down, because that's not my business, but I am the type of person to laugh at someone who whizzes past me, then I pass 5 miles later getting written up. Just wait until your first ticket or accident, you'll reconsider your driving habits.
-Don
There's no such thing as being safe driving 25 above the limit. I'm not the type of person to slow people down, because that's not my business, but I am the type of person to laugh at someone who whizzes past me, then I pass 5 miles later getting written up. Just wait until your first ticket or accident, you'll reconsider your driving habits.
HitchHykr
Apr 20, 12:45 PM
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.
The excuse wasn't that 9/11 it was 911. There were some highly publicized cases of people dialing 911 from their cell phones and the emergency personnel being unable to find them. So of course new laws were passed. :rolleyes:
The excuse wasn't that 9/11 it was 911. There were some highly publicized cases of people dialing 911 from their cell phones and the emergency personnel being unable to find them. So of course new laws were passed. :rolleyes:
LimeiBook86
Sep 12, 05:09 PM
I just quit iTunes, and reopened it. I got a message about the new iPod update. So now everyone should be able to update their iPod without restoring it. :D
Update: I just noticed that when connected to the computer the iPod's display is now a dimmer backlight. I like that, not as bright. This is very good :) :D
Update: I just noticed that when connected to the computer the iPod's display is now a dimmer backlight. I like that, not as bright. This is very good :) :D
holycat
Sep 10, 09:45 AM
Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
milo
Aug 28, 04:18 PM
Speaking of returns, is there a possibility of buying the machine and if they don't auto-upgrade me to the new one, return it and buy a new one?
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Actually NONE of the pc companies have made the transition. They haven't shipped a single machine with the new chips, just made announcements of shipments days or weeks away (and that was just earlier today...even if apple was behind, they'd only be hours behind, not even a full day). Right now apple is only behind in press releases, which has nothing to do with being ready to adapt to an intel platform. Now ranting about PC companies that haven't shipped the new machines yet...THAT is ridiculous.
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Actually NONE of the pc companies have made the transition. They haven't shipped a single machine with the new chips, just made announcements of shipments days or weeks away (and that was just earlier today...even if apple was behind, they'd only be hours behind, not even a full day). Right now apple is only behind in press releases, which has nothing to do with being ready to adapt to an intel platform. Now ranting about PC companies that haven't shipped the new machines yet...THAT is ridiculous.
SilianRail
Apr 14, 03:07 PM
in all seriousness people, this thing http://snowulf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/USB-3-Mini-B-Connector.jpg is going to scare people off...Hideous
redvettez06
Apr 4, 12:11 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
If there are a lot of facts that you don't know, how do you know that the headshot was no accident?
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
If there are a lot of facts that you don't know, how do you know that the headshot was no accident?
manu chao
Apr 11, 11:44 AM
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
And not everybody needs the free WiFi router you got from your ISP.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
As said 100 times already, Airfoil Speakers. Yes, you need the Airfoil app but to me that is close enough to acting like an Airport Express unless you want to stream music from your iPad to your iPhone.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Again, what scenario cannot be solved with either the remote app, plugging in your or some guest's iOS device or iPod or connecting to guest's iTunes library via Home Sharing?
Let's see, a guest's iOS device or iPod would have to 'controlled' from your Mac and not from the device itself, ditto for a laptop (though the trial version of Airfoil should transmit a song or two without problems for free wirelessly from anybody's computer to your computer).
And not everybody needs the free WiFi router you got from your ISP.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
As said 100 times already, Airfoil Speakers. Yes, you need the Airfoil app but to me that is close enough to acting like an Airport Express unless you want to stream music from your iPad to your iPhone.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Again, what scenario cannot be solved with either the remote app, plugging in your or some guest's iOS device or iPod or connecting to guest's iTunes library via Home Sharing?
Let's see, a guest's iOS device or iPod would have to 'controlled' from your Mac and not from the device itself, ditto for a laptop (though the trial version of Airfoil should transmit a song or two without problems for free wirelessly from anybody's computer to your computer).
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 10:45 AM
as much as others "stole" from apple I bet apple "stole" just as much from other companies. funny how macrumors failed to mention that samsung may be counter suing because apple might have used some samsung tech without asking as well.
oh well life goes on. None of theses multi BILLION dollar companies have any soul, they are just cold, calculating, heartless businesses. And for all the apple fanatics here, yes that INCLUDES apple. :o
oh well life goes on. None of theses multi BILLION dollar companies have any soul, they are just cold, calculating, heartless businesses. And for all the apple fanatics here, yes that INCLUDES apple. :o
GFLPraxis
Jul 14, 10:27 AM
Awesome!
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
No, but when Merom comes out (the laptop version of Conroe/Core 2 Duo), you can upgrade the iMac to that.
Conroe and Merom are 64-bit, right?
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
I'm really hoping for a Conroe iMac. It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket.
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
No, but when Merom comes out (the laptop version of Conroe/Core 2 Duo), you can upgrade the iMac to that.
Conroe and Merom are 64-bit, right?
I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.
I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:
I'm really hoping for a Conroe iMac. It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket.