thworple
Oct 27, 11:40 AM
Okay... I'm not quite done, you can get back to your whining in a moment.
See that area emphasized above? That's the exact thing that causes all our bickering in but the U.S. and the U.K.. The idea that somehow it's okay to violate contracts, laws or even social norms just because you agree with the reason for breaking said rules. If you have a problem with the rules, get them changed, until you do, obey them. There's a reason it's called "civilization" - we all have to be civil for it to work.
Okay. Now I'm really done.
Actually, the Expo managers allowed them to have 2 people by the entrance giving out leaflets (that much is mentioned in the MacWorld article that has been quoted in this thread).
It transpires that they may have been thrown out for other reasons (berating other stallholders, and taking photos of children without permission). My beef was with the fact that the ORIGINAL story was Greenpeace being thrown out for giving out leaflets outside of its area, which PLENTY of others did too. Yet no-one has any evidence that these other parties were ejected also. It originally seemed like they wanted to make an example of Greenpeace above everyone else, which is what I had a problem with.
However, it transpires that more than just this may have happened yesterday, which is all well and good. If they did something more extreme, then they are deserving of their punishment (ie - they should have been thrown out). But giving out flyers to people away from their stall is NOT a good enough reason!!
See that area emphasized above? That's the exact thing that causes all our bickering in but the U.S. and the U.K.. The idea that somehow it's okay to violate contracts, laws or even social norms just because you agree with the reason for breaking said rules. If you have a problem with the rules, get them changed, until you do, obey them. There's a reason it's called "civilization" - we all have to be civil for it to work.
Okay. Now I'm really done.
Actually, the Expo managers allowed them to have 2 people by the entrance giving out leaflets (that much is mentioned in the MacWorld article that has been quoted in this thread).
It transpires that they may have been thrown out for other reasons (berating other stallholders, and taking photos of children without permission). My beef was with the fact that the ORIGINAL story was Greenpeace being thrown out for giving out leaflets outside of its area, which PLENTY of others did too. Yet no-one has any evidence that these other parties were ejected also. It originally seemed like they wanted to make an example of Greenpeace above everyone else, which is what I had a problem with.
However, it transpires that more than just this may have happened yesterday, which is all well and good. If they did something more extreme, then they are deserving of their punishment (ie - they should have been thrown out). But giving out flyers to people away from their stall is NOT a good enough reason!!
ScubaDuc
Sep 14, 08:55 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
Ohhh, Please let it be watertight to at least 100ft/30 meters while we are at it..:rolleyes:
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
Ohhh, Please let it be watertight to at least 100ft/30 meters while we are at it..:rolleyes:
FFTT
Sep 10, 08:26 PM
I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
Takeo
Mar 23, 05:15 PM
People who speed and drive under the influence make me sick. Pull the apps. And when you catch the scum, throw them in jail and take away their licence. The don't deserve to walk among us.
uv23
Sep 12, 09:20 PM
Apple's whole new "black is top of the line" trend is thoroughly idiotic. I literally removed my credit card from my wallet when I read on the event stream that Apple had released an 8gb nano, then replaced it when I read on about the 8gb model being black only. I hate black electronics. I want an aluminum 8gb iPod to match my PowerBook. Is that so much to ask?? Fine, if they want to only allow black for 8gb, but why limit us. Stupid stupid stupid.:mad:
prezpat2020
Aug 28, 03:22 PM
I dream of a new macbook pro enclosure...
Amen to that! Give me the Santa Rosa with a new MacBook Pro enclosure and 10.5 preinstalled... THEN I'll upgrade from my sturdy G3 iBook!
Amen to that! Give me the Santa Rosa with a new MacBook Pro enclosure and 10.5 preinstalled... THEN I'll upgrade from my sturdy G3 iBook!
Coheebuzz
Aug 24, 06:18 AM
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Oh you are right, i didn't really check the date. But am sure it's somewhat related to this, since Woo was to invest some serious money to win the market, and now he has the serious money he needs.
100m is still a massive amount of cash, but only roughly 1/100 of Apples total cash. And Apple has gained a couple of things too like the 'made for iPod' logo on their No.1 competitor, which only standardizes the iPod even more.
Also the most important thing they gained is that they are now 'co-owners' of the patent. And when Creative decides to sue somebody else for patent infringement (Zune), Apple will join the fun too and am sure in that case they'll get most of their money back.
Oh you are right, i didn't really check the date. But am sure it's somewhat related to this, since Woo was to invest some serious money to win the market, and now he has the serious money he needs.
100m is still a massive amount of cash, but only roughly 1/100 of Apples total cash. And Apple has gained a couple of things too like the 'made for iPod' logo on their No.1 competitor, which only standardizes the iPod even more.
Also the most important thing they gained is that they are now 'co-owners' of the patent. And when Creative decides to sue somebody else for patent infringement (Zune), Apple will join the fun too and am sure in that case they'll get most of their money back.
milo
Sep 5, 06:02 PM
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
I'll think about it. I think it's covered by "video to tv via dvi>hdmi cable for hdtv or analogue connection for sdtv". Which you obviously missed?
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
I'll think about it. I think it's covered by "video to tv via dvi>hdmi cable for hdtv or analogue connection for sdtv". Which you obviously missed?
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
LaMerVipere
Sep 5, 02:45 PM
iTunes Movie Store http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/5757/animbouncefg0.gif
firsttube
Sep 13, 09:36 PM
I am not really crazy about this design. Having to slide the click-wheel down every time I need to use my phone doesn't sound like fun (plus, what would this thing look like open? ...what I'm picturing is ugly).
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
do you dial numbers every time you use your phone? I have a samsung t809, and i don't slide it down most of the time, unless i want to answer it that way. It's kinda fun, but it's not required to answer the phone.
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/11/0,,i=118734&,00.jpg
oh yeah, this plays aac's and any song as a ringtone. so that makes ringtone purchases 0.00 if you own the song already... what a concept!
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
do you dial numbers every time you use your phone? I have a samsung t809, and i don't slide it down most of the time, unless i want to answer it that way. It's kinda fun, but it's not required to answer the phone.
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/11/0,,i=118734&,00.jpg
oh yeah, this plays aac's and any song as a ringtone. so that makes ringtone purchases 0.00 if you own the song already... what a concept!
kurtsayin
Oct 27, 12:37 PM
I'm so sick of environmentalists. It is just self-righteous bigotry that has very little basis in actual facts. We don't live in some kind of uber-polluted country where the air is unbreathable and garbage heaps block scenic viewing. We are not short on trees, we are not short on resources, we are not all dying from PVC poisoning...
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 10:28 AM
The real problem isn't the OS as much as it is in applications.
A well-threaded O/S won't help make Photoshop or Avid run much faster, unless the application code is also able to use all of the cores that are present.
Some applications are inherently serial - you have to do step A, then step B (because step B depends on step A). It's not a matter of poor programming, it's that the task is serial. (Note that many Photoshop benchmarks quote "MP-aware" filters separately from actions that don't scale.)
For these "not well-threaded" applications, multiple cores will still be beneficial so that you can run multiple applications simultaneously - all at full speed.
There are some server-type applications (web or database) that run many (hundreds or thousands) threads simultaneously. (For a web server - each browser session is a natural thread.) For these applications, operating system efficiency is important. The reports that OSX is poor at threading (such as Mac OS X limits server performance (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/15/os.x.server.review/)) aren't really that important for desktop apps that want to use all 4 cores (or soon 8).
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic.
...
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine.
Ahh. Nice info Aiden, thanks for that!
Many BSODs today?
I must be one of the few windows users who has never seen a BSOD since Win 95...
I've been using the Vista Beta 2 exclusively since it's release and it's apparently a very unstable OS yet I haven't seen a single BSOD. Looking forward to upgrading to RC1 and all the performance improvements that will bring though! :D
What I'm wondering is how Leopard will change the performance of the iMacs and Mac Pros. Will having a full 64-bit operating system and applications mean they run faster, or will the end-user see little difference?
A well-threaded O/S won't help make Photoshop or Avid run much faster, unless the application code is also able to use all of the cores that are present.
Some applications are inherently serial - you have to do step A, then step B (because step B depends on step A). It's not a matter of poor programming, it's that the task is serial. (Note that many Photoshop benchmarks quote "MP-aware" filters separately from actions that don't scale.)
For these "not well-threaded" applications, multiple cores will still be beneficial so that you can run multiple applications simultaneously - all at full speed.
There are some server-type applications (web or database) that run many (hundreds or thousands) threads simultaneously. (For a web server - each browser session is a natural thread.) For these applications, operating system efficiency is important. The reports that OSX is poor at threading (such as Mac OS X limits server performance (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/15/os.x.server.review/)) aren't really that important for desktop apps that want to use all 4 cores (or soon 8).
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic.
...
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine.
Ahh. Nice info Aiden, thanks for that!
Many BSODs today?
I must be one of the few windows users who has never seen a BSOD since Win 95...
I've been using the Vista Beta 2 exclusively since it's release and it's apparently a very unstable OS yet I haven't seen a single BSOD. Looking forward to upgrading to RC1 and all the performance improvements that will bring though! :D
What I'm wondering is how Leopard will change the performance of the iMacs and Mac Pros. Will having a full 64-bit operating system and applications mean they run faster, or will the end-user see little difference?
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Squonk
Sep 26, 09:17 AM
The Cingular "Jack" logo will look great on that new Apple-made phone. :(
I hear you. :eek: But, there are no Intel Inside stickers on the Intel Macs. Perhaps there is hope...
I hear you. :eek: But, there are no Intel Inside stickers on the Intel Macs. Perhaps there is hope...
MrMac'n'Cheese
Apr 4, 12:19 PM
Maybe a shot to the head was a bit much, but that's an occupational hazard for thiefs, no sympathy here.
The guard deserves a medal for protecting one of Steve's altars.
The guard deserves a medal for protecting one of Steve's altars.
erikh
Sep 26, 07:58 AM
did you read the article above?
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
Well, the cell phone markets work in different ways in different parts of the world. While the standard in the US, and other parts of the Americas, is that phone and network follows each other closely (which is why you have a lot of provider-specific phone models, even for the supposedly provider-independent GSM phones), most of Europe has a very weak connection between individual phones and networks.
Here, the most provider-specific you can go is to get a discounted (yet otherwise ordinary) phone if you sign up for a one-year subscription. Oh, and you may get your provider's GPRS/WAP/MMS settings pre-installed.
So, it would really be a first if Apple would get "provider-exclusive" distribution deals throughout Europe. And that's not considering the fact that there is no single provider that covers all of Europe, so they would have to go through the troubles of signing different deals in each country. In my thinking, that leads to Apple either dropping the European market, postponing the release in Europe until they have saturated the US market, or just release it on the general market. After all, I believe most of the European cell phones that are available on the US market as provider exclusive are sold "openly" (under slightly different names and color schemes) back here in Europe.
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
Well, the cell phone markets work in different ways in different parts of the world. While the standard in the US, and other parts of the Americas, is that phone and network follows each other closely (which is why you have a lot of provider-specific phone models, even for the supposedly provider-independent GSM phones), most of Europe has a very weak connection between individual phones and networks.
Here, the most provider-specific you can go is to get a discounted (yet otherwise ordinary) phone if you sign up for a one-year subscription. Oh, and you may get your provider's GPRS/WAP/MMS settings pre-installed.
So, it would really be a first if Apple would get "provider-exclusive" distribution deals throughout Europe. And that's not considering the fact that there is no single provider that covers all of Europe, so they would have to go through the troubles of signing different deals in each country. In my thinking, that leads to Apple either dropping the European market, postponing the release in Europe until they have saturated the US market, or just release it on the general market. After all, I believe most of the European cell phones that are available on the US market as provider exclusive are sold "openly" (under slightly different names and color schemes) back here in Europe.
gri
Apr 25, 02:46 PM
Well they arent going to get worse are they!!
They could, e.g. by leaving out features we got used to and like (see back lit keyboard in current MBA)
They could, e.g. by leaving out features we got used to and like (see back lit keyboard in current MBA)
Peace
Sep 5, 02:22 PM
I don't usually speculate, but I find it interesting "Showtime" is capitalized. Could the downloads be part of some partnership with the cable channel? Just wild speculation on my part.
-p-
Showtime is owned by Viacom,who also owns the movie channel and a cable company.
-p-
Showtime is owned by Viacom,who also owns the movie channel and a cable company.
batchtaster
Nov 14, 09:13 AM
Whatever. Someone will be more than happy to come along and fill the gap, if they haven't already.
Let's see, that's, what, two developers who've decided to pack it in. That's not a "wave of discontent" or whatever it's supposedly being touted as. Esp since more developers have no doubt joined in the same period than have walked. This is the nature of this kind of thing. Not happy? Fine. Leave. Nobody's making you stay. It was your choice to get involved in the first place. Take your ball and go home.
The Doomsayers can go ***** themselves.
Let's see, that's, what, two developers who've decided to pack it in. That's not a "wave of discontent" or whatever it's supposedly being touted as. Esp since more developers have no doubt joined in the same period than have walked. This is the nature of this kind of thing. Not happy? Fine. Leave. Nobody's making you stay. It was your choice to get involved in the first place. Take your ball and go home.
The Doomsayers can go ***** themselves.
jpg
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I don't care anymore about speed of the processors. All of the newer generations are faster than what I need - the only upgrade that is worth it for me is going full SSD. I upgraded one older MacBook with an SSD and it's the best upgrade I ever did - worth more than any other upgrade, it is amazing who that old MacBook got from 'good too use' to 'feels insane fast'. Application startup time can't be measured anymore (some apps took >15sec before, now it's less than one second). From that experience, I would rather take a slower processore but the best SSD I can get.
I know, there are some use cases where the processor speed counts - but just for compiling code and running other apps, I don't care anymore. The big bottleneck these days is the harddrive.
Thanks for the advice but I think I will wait until I can get a 512GB hard drive for under �200.
I know, there are some use cases where the processor speed counts - but just for compiling code and running other apps, I don't care anymore. The big bottleneck these days is the harddrive.
Thanks for the advice but I think I will wait until I can get a 512GB hard drive for under �200.
milo
Jul 20, 04:43 PM
Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
MattInOz
Jan 2, 06:11 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
mojohojo
Apr 19, 10:10 PM
i'd probably be called an apple-fanboy from friends because having now own a macbook pro, macbook, ipods, iphones and ipads but this kind of **** apple does is probably what will make me hate apple and boycott their products if there were any other good alternatives currently on par with apple.
what i see is Samsung being a major distributor or hardware to apple, apple first finds alternatives companies for their hardware (sony, LG) and once they have find all the hardware replacements they go and sue [backstab] them?
Apple should know their products are far superior and better currently on the market, if other competitors are coming with close products, they should just improve on them rather than trying to shut everyone down and be some monopoly. everyone knows competition is what drives our development.
i can see this thought surely must have come straight from Steve Jobs from his big ego and dickhead personality; he 'would' be the type of guy to have a 2 face - pretending to be nice to Samsung for all their parts and backstabbing once he finds out they're producing similar products thats gaining market behind the iphones.
you know what, **** apple and steve jobs. no more pity for jobs and whatever illness he's suffering from, probably deserves it, karma. samsung is one of the fatest developing tech companies that will soon beat Sony and i do hope they beat Apple and job's ass.
what i see is Samsung being a major distributor or hardware to apple, apple first finds alternatives companies for their hardware (sony, LG) and once they have find all the hardware replacements they go and sue [backstab] them?
Apple should know their products are far superior and better currently on the market, if other competitors are coming with close products, they should just improve on them rather than trying to shut everyone down and be some monopoly. everyone knows competition is what drives our development.
i can see this thought surely must have come straight from Steve Jobs from his big ego and dickhead personality; he 'would' be the type of guy to have a 2 face - pretending to be nice to Samsung for all their parts and backstabbing once he finds out they're producing similar products thats gaining market behind the iphones.
you know what, **** apple and steve jobs. no more pity for jobs and whatever illness he's suffering from, probably deserves it, karma. samsung is one of the fatest developing tech companies that will soon beat Sony and i do hope they beat Apple and job's ass.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 01:19 AM
The files are much larger both the bought stuff and the home encodes. (but thats what you expect with four times the pixels) but they look fantastic when your ipod is connected to a tv compared to the old encodes.Yes except I have been getting excellent looking TV playback from iPod w/oH.264 by encoding 544x400 SD and 624x352 HD and I am able to keep the bit rate down to no more than 1000kbps HD and 700 SD still looking great.
The Apple H.264 Fixed Export bitrate is aparently 1500 kbps which I think is excessive and unnecessary.
To sum up after testing the new H.264 640x480 fixed preset encoder Apple offers in QT Pro:
1. Result is a 640x480 1639kbps 222MB mp4 movie after three stage process that takes much longer than:
2. NON H.264 Two-pass Handbrake FFmpeg encoding 544x400 - Max res allowed pre-iPod 1.2 - 739kbps 100MB mp4 movie looks almost the same.
3. I'm gonna have to remain a NON-H.264 advocate under these circumstances.
I just can't see the additional file size being worth it. In fact, my guess is, if I could control the size of the H.264 export, the 100MB version would be inferior to the Handbrake NON version @ 100MB 2-pass. They are just that close when looking at both of the above.
Note: We don't yet know what the new NON H.264 maximum resolution is that is still iPod compatible under the new 1.2 OS. We can't assume it's also 640 x 480 without H.264 encoding. That is not clear at all yet.
The Apple H.264 Fixed Export bitrate is aparently 1500 kbps which I think is excessive and unnecessary.
To sum up after testing the new H.264 640x480 fixed preset encoder Apple offers in QT Pro:
1. Result is a 640x480 1639kbps 222MB mp4 movie after three stage process that takes much longer than:
2. NON H.264 Two-pass Handbrake FFmpeg encoding 544x400 - Max res allowed pre-iPod 1.2 - 739kbps 100MB mp4 movie looks almost the same.
3. I'm gonna have to remain a NON-H.264 advocate under these circumstances.
I just can't see the additional file size being worth it. In fact, my guess is, if I could control the size of the H.264 export, the 100MB version would be inferior to the Handbrake NON version @ 100MB 2-pass. They are just that close when looking at both of the above.
Note: We don't yet know what the new NON H.264 maximum resolution is that is still iPod compatible under the new 1.2 OS. We can't assume it's also 640 x 480 without H.264 encoding. That is not clear at all yet.
