Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:44 AM
quad core macbook pro anyone ?Probably not for two more years. :( It's not even mentioned in any of the published Intel roadmaps yet.
Doctor Q
Aug 23, 05:59 PM
That's quite a sum of money! A bit more than my Power Mac cost me, even with that extra RAM.
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
SactoGuy18
Apr 15, 07:41 PM
Let's face it folks. The real success of USB 3.0 and/or Thunderbolt external connections will really depend on native support from Microsoft Windows, like it or not (Mac fans kind of ignore the fact that most new desktop/laptop computers still ship with Windows 7 installed). My guess is that we will see Window 7 Service Pack 2 (probably due early 2012) add full USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt support, while Windows 8--probably due fall 2012--will support both connections natively.
musiclover137
Aug 23, 05:34 PM
It is likely that someone screwed up and delayed in applying for a patent, as such, :eek: Creative got there first. Maybe that is why Steve sounded pissed.
That's what I think could have happened too. I don't know why people think Creative made this up and Apple felt like giving $100 million to charity or something.
Apple was wrong in this one. The End
That's what I think could have happened too. I don't know why people think Creative made this up and Apple felt like giving $100 million to charity or something.
Apple was wrong in this one. The End
miketcool
Sep 13, 09:49 PM
So the search feature is related to dialing? Man, this is only throwing fuel into an uniterrested group of people worn from constant rumorings of whimsical phones.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 08:22 PM
Please stop these chip rumors, it will only spawn new "MacBooks this Tuesday" threads:(
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
Nomadski
Apr 13, 07:07 AM
MagnusVonMagnum -
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
pkson
Apr 19, 09:19 AM
Heard they sued 'em back.
cuestakid
Sep 26, 11:32 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
Evangelion
Sep 6, 01:47 AM
I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Well, the good thing (as far as Apple is concerned) with Bittorrent is that it makes it easier and cheaper to distribute content, the fact that it can make RECEIVING the said content faster is just a nice bonus. And who is to say that they couldn't combine the good parts of Quicktime (instant-on) with the good parts of Bittorrent (distributed distribution).
Well, the good thing (as far as Apple is concerned) with Bittorrent is that it makes it easier and cheaper to distribute content, the fact that it can make RECEIVING the said content faster is just a nice bonus. And who is to say that they couldn't combine the good parts of Quicktime (instant-on) with the good parts of Bittorrent (distributed distribution).
Mac-Addict
Aug 31, 06:24 PM
I'm just holding out for a Macbook Pro 15.4 2.33GHz:cool: but I would love to see a iPhone but itunes selling movies?! silly idea IMO...
pondosinatra
Mar 23, 09:09 AM
Umm, ok. :rolleyes:
Based on your signature you're quite the Apple fan huh?
I bet you think the iPad makes a better e-book reader than the Kindle as well huh?
Based on your signature you're quite the Apple fan huh?
I bet you think the iPad makes a better e-book reader than the Kindle as well huh?
shawnce
Sep 26, 03:08 PM
When will we see global releases of iTunes stuff? When the copyright holders, trade organizations, labor groups, local governments, etc. clean up their ***** mess of laws, taxes, etc.
...do that and then Apple will roll it out in very short order.
The simple fact of the matter Apple wants to make a simple to use and consistent service but so many road blocks exist to doing that because of the above mentioned mess that they cannot do it universally. Folks should be happy that companies like Apple are trying to push the world forward in this space.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service. What phone you have? The newer quad band phones get great service in and out of urban areas using Cingular.
...do that and then Apple will roll it out in very short order.
The simple fact of the matter Apple wants to make a simple to use and consistent service but so many road blocks exist to doing that because of the above mentioned mess that they cannot do it universally. Folks should be happy that companies like Apple are trying to push the world forward in this space.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service. What phone you have? The newer quad band phones get great service in and out of urban areas using Cingular.
enklined
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
Isn't it possible that the heads up provided up this app (and friends, newspapers, etc) may make people who know they will be drinking later in the evening re-think their mode of transportation? Could be saving a life or two.
Eh not really. If you've been drinking. Don't drive. Not a difficult dilemma to solve. No technology required to solve it.
And if you are planning to go out and get hammered, take a taxi.
I agree, no one could argue against that. However, for the guy who thinks he may be sober enough to drive: he checks his phone and gets discouraged by the local check points and decides to hail a cab.
Seems like a very decent possibility of this happening. Could save a life, or many. For that alone, the app shouldn't be pulled.
Eh not really. If you've been drinking. Don't drive. Not a difficult dilemma to solve. No technology required to solve it.
And if you are planning to go out and get hammered, take a taxi.
I agree, no one could argue against that. However, for the guy who thinks he may be sober enough to drive: he checks his phone and gets discouraged by the local check points and decides to hail a cab.
Seems like a very decent possibility of this happening. Could save a life, or many. For that alone, the app shouldn't be pulled.
LarryC
Apr 23, 02:48 PM
Intel doesn't have a problem "dealing with ATI". The problem is that the integrated graphics in Sandy Bridge are inside the CPU, so if you put an alternative chipset with integrated graphics you're paying for stuff that you don't use, and the whole point of integrated graphics is to reduce costs.
Also, NVIDIA is prohibited by Intel to make new chipsets for Intel CPUs that have an integrated memory controller.
Thank you.
Also, NVIDIA is prohibited by Intel to make new chipsets for Intel CPUs that have an integrated memory controller.
Thank you.
KnightWRX
Apr 19, 07:03 AM
I think this may be one of those stories where the media make it sound much bigger than it is. A load of lawyers will make a ton of money and the two companies will come to some sort of licensing agreement or Apple will get a discount on some of the parts they buy.
Or this will drag out for years and be eventually settled/judged when it is completely irrelevant. Actually, this is the most likely outcome, since all civil lawsuits over IP in the states last for years.
We'll never quite know what happened nor do I believe anyone will dig deep enough so we actually know Apple's claims in all of this.
Or this will drag out for years and be eventually settled/judged when it is completely irrelevant. Actually, this is the most likely outcome, since all civil lawsuits over IP in the states last for years.
We'll never quite know what happened nor do I believe anyone will dig deep enough so we actually know Apple's claims in all of this.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 04:08 PM
because you are beholden to the content people for how long they want that content to be streamable. See loss of Dexter on Netflix as an example (or even the rolling expiration of movies).
right and that was just as an example. if you have the option to choose your playlist in the cloud and it won't ever go away bc it's your playlist.....why pay tons of money buying physical media?
check out grooveshark......
right and that was just as an example. if you have the option to choose your playlist in the cloud and it won't ever go away bc it's your playlist.....why pay tons of money buying physical media?
check out grooveshark......
sammyman
Apr 30, 01:11 PM
Time to buy a machine for my wife.
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:47 PM
I often wondered what kind of people could find a homeowner who shot an armed intruder guilty of a crime or culpable in civil court. Having read many of the comments in this thread, now I know.
Scottsdale
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Please bring back the 24"! 21" - too small. 27" - too big. 24" - just right!
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
I actually read somewhere that due to the way LCD panels are manufactured that there are various sizes that can be cut. Supposedly Apple is wasting several inches of panel by having an off size. I think it's possible that the 24" might just make its way back into the lineup as the new low end iMac. However, I think we would hear rumors of that ahead of time. Maybe with the next design change. I think 2012 will be a big year for the return of the Mac. There are rumors of MBP changes, and it seems like Apple could cut down the size of the "chin" and make the iMac look like the 27" LED ACD with just display showing from the front.
Anyways, I have a 27" LED ACD, and from my experience it's too big. I really love the size of it but it's a double edged sword. I found that the 24" was just right, but I would prefer the resolution of the 27" only in 16:10 format in the 24" ACD. I think Apple needs to also go for a 30" for the professionals out there that want bigger. I think a consumer perfect size is probably 24" while pros might want 30" or even larger. I am with you in wanting some better sizes in both iMacs and the ACDs with them. I do find it odd that the only size ACD is 27" while that's bigger and more expensive than most consumers care for, and Apple is all about consumers now.
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
I actually read somewhere that due to the way LCD panels are manufactured that there are various sizes that can be cut. Supposedly Apple is wasting several inches of panel by having an off size. I think it's possible that the 24" might just make its way back into the lineup as the new low end iMac. However, I think we would hear rumors of that ahead of time. Maybe with the next design change. I think 2012 will be a big year for the return of the Mac. There are rumors of MBP changes, and it seems like Apple could cut down the size of the "chin" and make the iMac look like the 27" LED ACD with just display showing from the front.
Anyways, I have a 27" LED ACD, and from my experience it's too big. I really love the size of it but it's a double edged sword. I found that the 24" was just right, but I would prefer the resolution of the 27" only in 16:10 format in the 24" ACD. I think Apple needs to also go for a 30" for the professionals out there that want bigger. I think a consumer perfect size is probably 24" while pros might want 30" or even larger. I am with you in wanting some better sizes in both iMacs and the ACDs with them. I do find it odd that the only size ACD is 27" while that's bigger and more expensive than most consumers care for, and Apple is all about consumers now.
res1233
Mar 29, 03:06 PM
Woohooo!
Awesome to see Android on the top with Windows. It's about time opensource started taking off. Enough of this Apple closed source junk.
UHM... iOS is far more open-source than windows is. Nice try... Android might be more open-source though, I'm not sure.
Awesome to see Android on the top with Windows. It's about time opensource started taking off. Enough of this Apple closed source junk.
UHM... iOS is far more open-source than windows is. Nice try... Android might be more open-source though, I'm not sure.
AppleMacDudeG4
Apr 28, 07:53 PM
Apple is doing extremely we'll in a lot of markets. Microsoft does well in the corporate market but they are not flashy or innovative in terms of their core market. Microsoft does well because corporations have settled on Windows / Office combination. Since it does well for their purposes, it is enough to sustain them.
Congratulations to Apple for doing so well but do not feel bad for Microsoft.
Congratulations to Apple for doing so well but do not feel bad for Microsoft.
nagromme
Oct 12, 02:20 PM
I wouldn't want a red clickwheel unless it was metal. Red plastic would not match the rest well.
PS, I wish the nano clickwheels lit up blinding white in the dark like on the ads :)
PS, I wish the nano clickwheels lit up blinding white in the dark like on the ads :)
