firestarter
Apr 11, 07:32 AM
blackNBUK - thanks for the correction!
twoodcc
Sep 10, 10:38 PM
here's hoping to something good in the living room!*
we'll see soon enough
we'll see soon enough
guet
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.
Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.
Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.
If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.
balamw
Sep 6, 01:18 AM
If they can put the menu logic into iTunes, all the "Airport Express A/V" would have do do is add an H264 decoder chip and video DAC to the current Airport Express, that would be a pretty cheap solution.
Just note that the H.264 decoder chip in the 5G iPod is what sets the resolution and bitrate limits for current iTMS videos to no more than 320x240 and under 768 kbps. Any more powerful chip would put out more heat and require a larger box to dissipate it. If they went with MPEG-4 they could already handle 2Mbps 480x480 files which is competitive with current digital satellite offerings.
B
Just note that the H.264 decoder chip in the 5G iPod is what sets the resolution and bitrate limits for current iTMS videos to no more than 320x240 and under 768 kbps. Any more powerful chip would put out more heat and require a larger box to dissipate it. If they went with MPEG-4 they could already handle 2Mbps 480x480 files which is competitive with current digital satellite offerings.
B
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 10:06 AM
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
Machead III
Aug 31, 02:00 PM
I wonder if Apple will be able to provide the Movie Store to Europe and the rest of the world. If they can't, it's as good to me as if they didn't announce it at all. I mean look at TV Shows, what a disgrace, in Europe we might aswell still be running iTunes 4.
I think a Movie Store should be seperate from iTunes. A new store for movies, a new app for managing them.
I think a Movie Store should be seperate from iTunes. A new store for movies, a new app for managing them.
bdj21ya
Sep 15, 06:57 PM
Apple being a California based company certainly must know about the new law just signed that prohibits hand held cell phone use while driving a car. (Reasonable law if you ask me) with this new law we can assume the phone will have some kind of "hands free" interface. It would be very hard to sell a high end phone that can't be used in a car in California. Apple must know this, the law has been in the works for some time.
It's a stupid law and not enforced. I talk on my phone all the time, while driving a stick shift with no problems. You just have to be willing to take the phone away from your ear when you need two hands.
That said, I really prefer using my bluetooth headset, and I hope Apple does include bluetooth with the phone, if only just for voice.
Also, Apple should look into the idea of wireless headphones/controllers while ignoring battery problems. Who cares if you have to double the size of the device as long as you're just leaving the device in your pocket or backpack, controlling it with a wireless remote, and experiencing it with wireless headphones. I'm not saying there aren't other problems with this, but I am saying that Apple shouldn't be afraid of the iPod getting bigger again to provide battery life for some new features (e.g. widescreen)
It's a stupid law and not enforced. I talk on my phone all the time, while driving a stick shift with no problems. You just have to be willing to take the phone away from your ear when you need two hands.
That said, I really prefer using my bluetooth headset, and I hope Apple does include bluetooth with the phone, if only just for voice.
Also, Apple should look into the idea of wireless headphones/controllers while ignoring battery problems. Who cares if you have to double the size of the device as long as you're just leaving the device in your pocket or backpack, controlling it with a wireless remote, and experiencing it with wireless headphones. I'm not saying there aren't other problems with this, but I am saying that Apple shouldn't be afraid of the iPod getting bigger again to provide battery life for some new features (e.g. widescreen)
Yebubbleman
Mar 22, 08:06 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/140815-imacs_2010.jpg
As tracked in our Buyer's Guide (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#iMac), the iMac has reached its average update interval, suggesting that we might be able to expect refreshed models to appear some time in the relatively near future. Expectations for revamped iMacs include a move to Sandy Bridge processors and implementation of the new Thunderbolt connectivity standard that debuted in the MacBook Pro last month.
In a series of Tweets (via MacNews.de (http://www.macnews.de/mac/imac-update-teil-2-mai-thunderbolt-sandy-bridge-160029)), CNET's Brian Tong claims (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234343263707136) to have received word from a reliable source (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234696809984000) that new iMacs should debut in late April or early May. The updated iMacs are said (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234522251444224) to feature Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt as expected, but no major cosmetic changes are reported to be included.iMac rumors have been relatively sparse in recent months, although DigiTimes indicated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/15/imac-and-macbook-pro-upgrades-in-first-half-of-2011/) in mid-December that Apple was expected to update both the MacBook Pro and iMac in the first half of 2011 with the iMac featuring a new panel size and price points. Just days before the MacBook Pro update in late February, DigiTimes reiterated its claim (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/22/apple-to-update-imac-alongside-or-soon-after-macbook-pro/) that may change the screen size on new iMacs, claiming that the new models could debut alongside or soon after the MacBook Pros.
Article Link: Potential iMac Update to Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt in 4-6 Weeks? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/)
More surprising than this rumor is the fact that it's the first actual MAC rumor (beyond "we've found that the Early 2011 MacBook Pros have quirks" posts) in weeks. None of that is surprising though. I wonder if there will be any surprises with this refresh? I'm guessing no Blu-Ray, which means I'm not buying one. Though I'm still curious as to what'll be under the hood.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/140815-imacs_2010.jpg
As tracked in our Buyer's Guide (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#iMac), the iMac has reached its average update interval, suggesting that we might be able to expect refreshed models to appear some time in the relatively near future. Expectations for revamped iMacs include a move to Sandy Bridge processors and implementation of the new Thunderbolt connectivity standard that debuted in the MacBook Pro last month.
In a series of Tweets (via MacNews.de (http://www.macnews.de/mac/imac-update-teil-2-mai-thunderbolt-sandy-bridge-160029)), CNET's Brian Tong claims (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234343263707136) to have received word from a reliable source (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234696809984000) that new iMacs should debut in late April or early May. The updated iMacs are said (http://twitter.com/brian_tong/status/50234522251444224) to feature Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt as expected, but no major cosmetic changes are reported to be included.iMac rumors have been relatively sparse in recent months, although DigiTimes indicated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/15/imac-and-macbook-pro-upgrades-in-first-half-of-2011/) in mid-December that Apple was expected to update both the MacBook Pro and iMac in the first half of 2011 with the iMac featuring a new panel size and price points. Just days before the MacBook Pro update in late February, DigiTimes reiterated its claim (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/22/apple-to-update-imac-alongside-or-soon-after-macbook-pro/) that may change the screen size on new iMacs, claiming that the new models could debut alongside or soon after the MacBook Pros.
Article Link: Potential iMac Update to Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt in 4-6 Weeks? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/)
More surprising than this rumor is the fact that it's the first actual MAC rumor (beyond "we've found that the Early 2011 MacBook Pros have quirks" posts) in weeks. None of that is surprising though. I wonder if there will be any surprises with this refresh? I'm guessing no Blu-Ray, which means I'm not buying one. Though I'm still curious as to what'll be under the hood.
cube
Mar 30, 01:26 PM
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 05:40 PM
So is that extra $.77 billion Apple made going to make a whit of difference in the end? Both companies have more cash then they know what to do with. Frankly MSFT should be less university research and more single-minded focus on products like Apple.
But Microsoft has done more for the world than Apple by taking that approach.
But Microsoft has done more for the world than Apple by taking that approach.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:19 PM
However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 15, 09:50 PM
I don't know if I can wait until MacWorld:(
Then read my comment, it's above yours.
Then read my comment, it's above yours.
thejakill
Oct 27, 12:28 PM
i think this whole environmental movement has been turned into a product. look at so-called environmentally-friendly cars (hybrids, flex fuel, etc). they're all using gas or resources in one way or another. but on the commercials you're told that by driving them, you're 'saving the earth'. it's all just a gimmick now.
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
Flake
Apr 20, 02:09 PM
The application is working terribly for me..I zoom into the map and it doesn't get any sharper, and lags horribly
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:53 PM
I don't think that's sad.
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
AutoSpies
Apr 30, 06:22 PM
screen prices are cheap and creative types would eat them up
:):apple::cool:
:):apple::cool:
Blue Fox
Jan 1, 03:22 AM
Wasn't there supposedly a "virus" going around for the Mac on Facebook a couple months ago? And it was supposed to be all doom and gloom for the Mac (so I've read in the forums from doom-sayers)......but, I haven't heard anything about it since, because nothing happened......this is pretty much the same thing.
OneMammoth
Mar 30, 01:32 PM
IMO it's like Publix or Kroger trying to claim the rights to "grocery store."
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
good point
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
good point
JAJ
Mar 23, 07:22 PM
Wow you are in such denial that I feel sorry for you.
...America is the fattest nation in the world(and quite possibly the stupidest). We have to adapt or we'll fall behind, we haven't yet because unless others have noticed we still are among the strongest economies in the world. Before the tsunami Japan was harder hit then we were, China infused $4 trillion into their economy when we did the stimulus package...just so you know of the $700 billion in allocated funds only about $300 billion was tapped and with the interest that corporations paid back we may have made money(it hasn't been calculated it was +-$20 billion). Spain is in financial crisis, Greece defaulted, Ireland has almost defaulted(probably because their 2% corporate tax rate, which arguably creates a massive amount of jobs)...the US debt is $14 trillion and our annual GDP was in 2010 $14.2 trillion(according to the World Fact Book) ...our debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world, with a larger country and economy comes more problems. To say that we have 11% unemployment and most of those people are now covered by government pay outs(they made it 36 months from 24, that one I'm not sure on) ...we're still not in any real trouble.
I'm not in denial, as much as I am well-informed.
And to return to the issue of the Apple pulling it....the First Amendment has been shown in court cases to not protect illegal or harmfully illicit speech such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater...this is essentially the same thing. And for those shouting about the Fourth Amendment(I think it was only one person) illegal search and seizure does not apply(via <i>Katz</i> and other cases) in situations where illegal activities are occurring, driving while intoxicating being illegal.
I hope that they trace the IP's and find that somebody somehow crossed state lines and then transmitted the data, therefore violating Federal law(as opposed to state) and allowing the Justice Department to get involved.
...America is the fattest nation in the world(and quite possibly the stupidest). We have to adapt or we'll fall behind, we haven't yet because unless others have noticed we still are among the strongest economies in the world. Before the tsunami Japan was harder hit then we were, China infused $4 trillion into their economy when we did the stimulus package...just so you know of the $700 billion in allocated funds only about $300 billion was tapped and with the interest that corporations paid back we may have made money(it hasn't been calculated it was +-$20 billion). Spain is in financial crisis, Greece defaulted, Ireland has almost defaulted(probably because their 2% corporate tax rate, which arguably creates a massive amount of jobs)...the US debt is $14 trillion and our annual GDP was in 2010 $14.2 trillion(according to the World Fact Book) ...our debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world, with a larger country and economy comes more problems. To say that we have 11% unemployment and most of those people are now covered by government pay outs(they made it 36 months from 24, that one I'm not sure on) ...we're still not in any real trouble.
I'm not in denial, as much as I am well-informed.
And to return to the issue of the Apple pulling it....the First Amendment has been shown in court cases to not protect illegal or harmfully illicit speech such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater...this is essentially the same thing. And for those shouting about the Fourth Amendment(I think it was only one person) illegal search and seizure does not apply(via <i>Katz</i> and other cases) in situations where illegal activities are occurring, driving while intoxicating being illegal.
I hope that they trace the IP's and find that somebody somehow crossed state lines and then transmitted the data, therefore violating Federal law(as opposed to state) and allowing the Justice Department to get involved.
Kufat
Sep 12, 02:32 PM
Updated my 5G iPod to 1.2, loaded Quadrophenia, and yes, there is FINALLY gapless. :D
stockscalper
Mar 22, 01:13 PM
Another hot grill coming from Apple! This one will be big enough to fry steaks!
slavey
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
jasper77
Sep 5, 05:50 PM
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
ease of use à la apple = buy/download a movie in the itunes movie store and stream it via airport av from your mac to a tv. or take a subscription to a tv show (like Lost or Prison Break) and let iTunes automatically download each new episode (via RSS) to your hard drive and than stream it to your tv whenever you want.
I don't think recording is the future.
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
ease of use à la apple = buy/download a movie in the itunes movie store and stream it via airport av from your mac to a tv. or take a subscription to a tv show (like Lost or Prison Break) and let iTunes automatically download each new episode (via RSS) to your hard drive and than stream it to your tv whenever you want.
I don't think recording is the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment