awraisch
Sep 5, 09:05 AM
store back up . . .no update?
iMikeT
Sep 6, 07:45 PM
I have the feeling that movie distribution is going to be a tougher obstacle than music.
It's too bad that these Hollywood execs will not let Apple handle how movies will be distributed.
It's too bad that these Hollywood execs will not let Apple handle how movies will be distributed.
firestarter
Apr 12, 10:01 PM
Don't know what the price will be but I'm nearly positive there will be no 'upgrade' price.
Apple seems to be moving to the app-store model where you pay less at first but then you pay the same for every upgrade.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
I don't know... Licensing terms seem more reasonable on the app store.
I guess we'll just have to see (I'm hoping for upgrade price though, since I have FCP!)
Apple seems to be moving to the app-store model where you pay less at first but then you pay the same for every upgrade.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
I don't know... Licensing terms seem more reasonable on the app store.
I guess we'll just have to see (I'm hoping for upgrade price though, since I have FCP!)
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
ezekielrage_99
Nov 28, 08:59 PM
zune people don't seem to agree what it is bad. they just deny the true. here what they are ridiculous.
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I have to admitt that was great to read, there are so many PC bashing thugs out there who know nothing about anything outside the realm of Microsoft bliss.
I like to think of myself as a fairly balanced PC and Apple person but the comments in that Zune site were just plain idiotic from the "Windows" people, their arguments wouldn't hold water.
The BIG Zune over iPod sales pitch I am hearing more and more is the "but Zune has a radio and wireless and it works with Windows".
Newsflash morons the iPod works with BOTH Windows and Mac OSX, a radio who really cares the reason I bought an iPod was so that I didn't have to listen to the stupid radio, and wireless I guess that would be nice..... wait you still need to plug the dam thing in the charge it.
Personally I am glad people aren't buying the Zune becuase it means that there aren't nearly as many brain dead people out there as I originally thought.
The reality of the effort with the Zune is that it is too little too late and a poor interpretation of an iPod...... Zune it's fugly
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I have to admitt that was great to read, there are so many PC bashing thugs out there who know nothing about anything outside the realm of Microsoft bliss.
I like to think of myself as a fairly balanced PC and Apple person but the comments in that Zune site were just plain idiotic from the "Windows" people, their arguments wouldn't hold water.
The BIG Zune over iPod sales pitch I am hearing more and more is the "but Zune has a radio and wireless and it works with Windows".
Newsflash morons the iPod works with BOTH Windows and Mac OSX, a radio who really cares the reason I bought an iPod was so that I didn't have to listen to the stupid radio, and wireless I guess that would be nice..... wait you still need to plug the dam thing in the charge it.
Personally I am glad people aren't buying the Zune becuase it means that there aren't nearly as many brain dead people out there as I originally thought.
The reality of the effort with the Zune is that it is too little too late and a poor interpretation of an iPod...... Zune it's fugly
brianfast
Sep 14, 02:49 PM
I got the Belkin Grip Vue in the blue color at bestbuy. Really a toss up between the three colors IMO.
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:39 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.
No Yonah and Merom are pin-compatible. Conroe isn't. Need a whole new motherboard.
No Yonah and Merom are pin-compatible. Conroe isn't. Need a whole new motherboard.
skunk
Mar 21, 02:19 PM
But the rebels are not in contact with the rest of the world through any official channels, and media access is poor.Twitter (http://twitter.com/ShababLibya) is informative, but after 42 years of impotence, normal service cannot be resumed instantaneously. The prospects seem remarkably good, though, that what emerges from this will be an unusually honest democracy.
dguisinger
Aug 7, 01:51 AM
I use to know my development talk, but not having done any coding in a few years my reaction to what you just said was: hu? :D
SOAP is a protocol that passes XML over HTTP......it basically allows client apps to access data from remote servers.
Applescript has some tools to make it easy....if you want to use applescript, but Cocoa really doesn't. You have to hard code every function in a wrapper library to make the HTTP call, get the parsed resposnes, etc
In Microsoft.NET, you add a "Web Reference" to your project, it scans the WDSL webservice description file on the internet to figure out what functions are there, and then builds a C# class that acts like its a local peice of code. You just call the functions natively from your program, and you'd never know you are talking to a remote server. If the server program changes, one click in your client project updates that stub-proxy file to the newest WDSL, click compile and bam, you have access to the latest and greatest functions from the server.
With Xcode......you really have to do alot of work by hand. We have a web service with thousands of functions to access our ecommerce system, we want to make a Mac OS native version of our client, but the shear amount of time spent making/maintaining a proxy stub in Xcode by hand would be more than the amount of work porting the user interface. I'm really hoping they automate this!
SOAP is a protocol that passes XML over HTTP......it basically allows client apps to access data from remote servers.
Applescript has some tools to make it easy....if you want to use applescript, but Cocoa really doesn't. You have to hard code every function in a wrapper library to make the HTTP call, get the parsed resposnes, etc
In Microsoft.NET, you add a "Web Reference" to your project, it scans the WDSL webservice description file on the internet to figure out what functions are there, and then builds a C# class that acts like its a local peice of code. You just call the functions natively from your program, and you'd never know you are talking to a remote server. If the server program changes, one click in your client project updates that stub-proxy file to the newest WDSL, click compile and bam, you have access to the latest and greatest functions from the server.
With Xcode......you really have to do alot of work by hand. We have a web service with thousands of functions to access our ecommerce system, we want to make a Mac OS native version of our client, but the shear amount of time spent making/maintaining a proxy stub in Xcode by hand would be more than the amount of work porting the user interface. I'm really hoping they automate this!
imac_japan
Jan 10, 08:16 PM
I told you all !!!! $499 headless Mac - here it comes and marketshare will grow...welcome back Apple !!
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 7, 08:18 AM
My prediction FWIW: What will not happen on the 12th: We will not see Jobs stand up in front of the crowd and make go on and on about a new fantastic movie download service. There is no need to do that. Movies on iTunes store is not revolutionary, unless they have developed some way to undo the laws of physics. We won't see Jobs demonstrating how easy it is to download movies, because it will take hours. Movies on iTunes is merely an incremental improvement. Could be done with a simple announcement. Everyone knows it is coming anyway.
THe 12th, I think, is all about hardware. It will be about an integrated system of hardware to manage and play music, movies, data, email. It will be about either a video iPod or the iPod cell (with video). This is the media center mac introduction. I also think that it may look like the g4 cube, roughly. Did you notice that the new flagship store is a cube? Those are my predictions. I am preparing the condiments to be ready to eat crow...
THe 12th, I think, is all about hardware. It will be about an integrated system of hardware to manage and play music, movies, data, email. It will be about either a video iPod or the iPod cell (with video). This is the media center mac introduction. I also think that it may look like the g4 cube, roughly. Did you notice that the new flagship store is a cube? Those are my predictions. I am preparing the condiments to be ready to eat crow...
RebootD
Apr 12, 08:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
This would be hilarious if there's no official announcement. Nah, they won't leave us hanging.
This would be hilarious if there's no official announcement. Nah, they won't leave us hanging.
shtoat
Apr 19, 01:26 PM
one a separate note: Who gave this article a negative?:mad: Probably someone wanting more iphone/ipad/ios rumours.:p
:)
:)
milo
Sep 6, 09:02 AM
Dude, the MBP was updated in late April of this year, why would you think it'll be updated four and a half months later??
Because new mobile chips just started shipping! You're nuts if you think MBP's won't be updated in the next couple weeks. There have already been confirmations from the retail channel based on supply constraints and similar things. It will probably be any day now.
You are mistaken. MBP was introduced January 10. It will go all new design and Core 2 Duo next Tuesday for sure.
Read his post, he said it was UPDATED in april, not introduced then. Which it was, they updated the 15 when the 17 shipped. And I doubt that the MBP announcement will be part of the Showtime presentation, but it should be soon.
Because new mobile chips just started shipping! You're nuts if you think MBP's won't be updated in the next couple weeks. There have already been confirmations from the retail channel based on supply constraints and similar things. It will probably be any day now.
You are mistaken. MBP was introduced January 10. It will go all new design and Core 2 Duo next Tuesday for sure.
Read his post, he said it was UPDATED in april, not introduced then. Which it was, they updated the 15 when the 17 shipped. And I doubt that the MBP announcement will be part of the Showtime presentation, but it should be soon.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 22, 12:14 PM
And their reasoning for picketing has nothing to do with opposition to the war.
I don't think you'll find any anti-war groups protesting at funerals.
I want to say I remember a few anti-war group protest at a funeral but did not make any real national head lines because it was not like the webro group protest.
It was a more tasteful one so to speak saying we have dead soldiers because of the war but was not full of the hate and directly linked to the war.
I am working off memory here but that sort of remember it.
I don't think you'll find any anti-war groups protesting at funerals.
I want to say I remember a few anti-war group protest at a funeral but did not make any real national head lines because it was not like the webro group protest.
It was a more tasteful one so to speak saying we have dead soldiers because of the war but was not full of the hate and directly linked to the war.
I am working off memory here but that sort of remember it.
Sbrocket
Jan 11, 05:20 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable. i am willing to bet the phase "there's something in the air" is referring to the soon to be announced rental service, not a piece of hardware. apple is making an obvious attempt to eliminate physical mediums altogether, first cds with mp3s and now dvds with downloadable vids (both via the itunes music store). everything will be available "in the air" or "up in the cloud," if you will. i'll be damned if they name their next product the "macbook air." c'mon people...
You may want to retract that...
Why do you assume that the information was based off the posters, rather than simple coincidence or MR waiting for some corroboration? That's a bad assumption if I had to say so.
You may want to retract that...
Why do you assume that the information was based off the posters, rather than simple coincidence or MR waiting for some corroboration? That's a bad assumption if I had to say so.
spyderracer393
Nov 27, 02:34 PM
Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
Edge100
Sep 1, 02:27 PM
I don't really know about the ideal price difference, but for some people, it wouldn't matter much. If you want a system with a lot of screen space, then you can get two 1920x1200 monitors. Sure, it will cost you, but if you need the space, then you'll go for the 23-inch. Also, to watch movies, a big screen is better than two small ones. It all depends on what you need the computer for...
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
JFreak
Jul 14, 07:15 AM
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
Macopotamus
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
an email from SEPTEMBER of last year is relevant now? maybe they didn't have plans then but are killing it now? things change
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
leekohler
Mar 19, 07:03 PM
It's disgusting and Exodus International has done a lot of harm to people. I'm on the fence on this. I think it's absolutely like offering illegal drugs online, and I can't believe that group is even allowed to do what they do, but hey- if people want to screw themselves up, I guess that their business.
X2468
Mar 22, 09:53 AM
I think that there's a good possibility that apps are not evaluated fairly.
firestarter
Mar 23, 04:36 AM
Apparently the app has been removed. No official statement from Apple yet.
LumbermanSVO
Apr 12, 09:02 PM
I drive a non-syncronised 10-speed stick with a hellacious clutch pedal 6-days a week, or about 105k miles a year. Even the worst backing situations, where I'm feathering the clutch a LOT, aren't enough to get my leg tired anymore. The clutch pedals in most cars feels like stepping on a rotten plumb to me now.
With enough time you can learn to float the gears(clutchless shifting) with any manual transmission, yes, even the synchronized ones. Once you learn it you'll find that it takes less force to get it in gear than when you use the clutch. Most of my missed shifts in the big truck or the car are from my hand slipping off the lever from having too loose of a grip on.
Even after all the time in the big truck I still prefer my personal vehicles to have a manual. I did just buy a car with an auto though, but at $825 you can't be too picky about what trans it has. :D
With enough time you can learn to float the gears(clutchless shifting) with any manual transmission, yes, even the synchronized ones. Once you learn it you'll find that it takes less force to get it in gear than when you use the clutch. Most of my missed shifts in the big truck or the car are from my hand slipping off the lever from having too loose of a grip on.
Even after all the time in the big truck I still prefer my personal vehicles to have a manual. I did just buy a car with an auto though, but at $825 you can't be too picky about what trans it has. :D
