gnasher729
Oct 30, 01:44 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs. :eek:
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:00 PM
If you are going to buy something to mainly play games on when you are out of the house which one are you going to buy.
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:50 PM
The Bible? I don't think I've ever heard of it. :rolleyes: No one can prove the existence of God in any form, let alone some specific God as described in the Bible (a compilation of edited stories mostly derived from hearsay).
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 07:33 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
actually you are giving the finger to the rest of us... not AT&T... AT&T has a business model and just passes on additional costs to the consumer that actually pays for these things. so thanks.
EvilEvil
Apr 9, 07:31 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
ZilogZ80
Apr 14, 05:48 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
RightZoom
RightZoom
desdomg
Mar 20, 04:52 PM
Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
SRSound
Oct 31, 12:46 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
rcp27
Apr 13, 04:59 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
Basically if you want to use it a lot (say top 5 or so programs) drag it to the dock and it's always there, one click to launch. On the right side of the dock is instant access to the applications folder. One click and the full contents are visible, so two clicks to launch (same as start menu). Next to it is the documents folder, same idea. You can set the dock to hide unless you bring the mouse to the edge (like auto hide on the windows task bar). It's not quite the same but offers basically the same degree of easy access and flexibility.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Copy and paste are there. I believe alt tab is too (or is it command tab?), but expos� and spaces handle the problem sooooo much better that I never feel the need for it. When I switched and discovered expos� I really did wonder how I ever lived without it (and when I have to use a Windows box it is the one thing I really miss most).
Basically if you want to use it a lot (say top 5 or so programs) drag it to the dock and it's always there, one click to launch. On the right side of the dock is instant access to the applications folder. One click and the full contents are visible, so two clicks to launch (same as start menu). Next to it is the documents folder, same idea. You can set the dock to hide unless you bring the mouse to the edge (like auto hide on the windows task bar). It's not quite the same but offers basically the same degree of easy access and flexibility.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Copy and paste are there. I believe alt tab is too (or is it command tab?), but expos� and spaces handle the problem sooooo much better that I never feel the need for it. When I switched and discovered expos� I really did wonder how I ever lived without it (and when I have to use a Windows box it is the one thing I really miss most).
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:56 PM
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
EricNau
Sep 20, 01:07 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
AJ Muni
Jul 11, 10:00 PM
WOW if this is indeed true...and appleinsider has been pretty reliable lately..
manic
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
Cerebrus' Maw
Feb 23, 06:40 PM
Android is going to do what Windows did. Those who like that Windows experience (read "cheap") are going to go in that direction. Those that want the elegant, minimalistic, rock solid OS, continue to stay with iPhone.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
randyharris
Sep 20, 12:52 AM
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
parenthesis
Oct 25, 10:27 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
iBug2
Apr 20, 07:50 PM
People should drop the Ferrari analogy, because it's totally off the mark. Ferrari is better than pretty much anything else, on almost every aspect you can think of, except size.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:18 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
DMann
Jul 14, 02:16 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
No comments:
Post a Comment