andi242
Apr 22, 02:34 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
if this is as slow as iDisk... no, thank you.
if this is as slow as iDisk... no, thank you.
Yvan256
Sep 10, 01:03 AM
That's right. But, with the plugins, it plays them just fine, so in theory it should be perfectly streamable, right?
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.
I don't know where you got your plug-ins, but DivX under Quicktime freezes my whole computer for a few seconds when it loads the file.
Besides, forget DivX, especially with Apple devices. Rip your DVDs to H.264/AAC.
g7by08believeit
Oct 12, 05:10 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
It looks like a more "true" red to me!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
It looks like a more "true" red to me!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
Consultant
Apr 11, 02:10 AM
What I don't get is why can't Apple enable any iOS device (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) as an Airplay target device? Obviously iOS supports it as Apple TV can be a target for Airplay from iTunes.
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
tkambitsch
Apr 30, 07:51 PM
I bought probably the very last PPC iMac at the end of 2006 (or was the end of 2005?). It died on Wednesday. I can still get to the HHD via Target mode so I think I should be able to move everything over as soon as I get one of the new ones. COME ON TUESDAY! Any ideas when they may ship?
Eye4Desyn
Apr 30, 04:12 PM
I couldn't possibly be happier to hear this news. Bring on May 3rd. I've got cash in hand.
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:24 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Applespider
Sep 5, 03:19 PM
Yeah... yeah... Movies for the American audience...
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Precisely... at least a gesture to the international audience would be good.
UK stations offer TV online... but all through WMP that Macs can't use.
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Precisely... at least a gesture to the international audience would be good.
UK stations offer TV online... but all through WMP that Macs can't use.
BoyBach
Aug 28, 01:36 PM
my cat has told me that there will be a 23" chin-less iMac with the new Core 2 Duo chips, 1gig std, wireless kbd and mouse std. Or he is just hungry - hard to tell just what he is saying but he has friends in high places (trees mostly)
still heres hoping he's spot on
Can you ask your cat if I should pack my 'big' coat or a 'summer' coat for my holiday in Portugal next week? Cheers. :D
still heres hoping he's spot on
Can you ask your cat if I should pack my 'big' coat or a 'summer' coat for my holiday in Portugal next week? Cheers. :D
CalBoy
Mar 29, 01:20 PM
He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
I doubt Oracle would get that at this stage of the game. It would deprive millions of people of their hardware and it would be a disaster for handset suppliers. No patent judge in his right mind would grant that kind of a request.
What's more likely is a monetary settlement based on the number of handsets running the patent being infringed.
I doubt Oracle would get that at this stage of the game. It would deprive millions of people of their hardware and it would be a disaster for handset suppliers. No patent judge in his right mind would grant that kind of a request.
What's more likely is a monetary settlement based on the number of handsets running the patent being infringed.
toddybody
Apr 22, 11:35 AM
Should I be pissed having bought the new SSD MB Air 4 months ago?:confused: I deserved some TB speeds.
Why? Do you have an external SSD array with a Thunderbolt interface? Power to you if so ;)
Why? Do you have an external SSD array with a Thunderbolt interface? Power to you if so ;)
oober_freak
Sep 26, 09:09 AM
You're not going anywhere with your market share if you don't launch your phone simultaneously in India and China.
Nokia learnt it, SE learnt it, Motorola learnt it.
Looks like Apple will learn it the hard way as well.
I mean on an average, in India, about 5 million connections are added per month. That's India alone. Add China's figure to this and you'll understand what I'm trying to say.
Nokia learnt it, SE learnt it, Motorola learnt it.
Looks like Apple will learn it the hard way as well.
I mean on an average, in India, about 5 million connections are added per month. That's India alone. Add China's figure to this and you'll understand what I'm trying to say.
seedster2
Apr 16, 08:21 PM
You have to admit this thread is really funny.
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
It's something I observed as well. It's an entertaining phenomenon
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
It's something I observed as well. It's an entertaining phenomenon
iScott428
Mar 29, 11:56 AM
I will pay any attention to this when someone can show me that in 2007 that they predicted that Android would be the market share leader in smartphones in 2011.
One year projections are tricky. Four year projections in an emerging tech category are a joke. What about WebOS or Motorola's new OS for smartphones? They may not go anywhere or they might and these yahoos don't even account for them at all.
The very fact that they honestly seem to think that the only smartphone OSes that will have any sort of market share in four years are the ones that exist today tells you just how much anyone should pay attention to this.
By far the best post in this thread. Well Said.
One year projections are tricky. Four year projections in an emerging tech category are a joke. What about WebOS or Motorola's new OS for smartphones? They may not go anywhere or they might and these yahoos don't even account for them at all.
The very fact that they honestly seem to think that the only smartphone OSes that will have any sort of market share in four years are the ones that exist today tells you just how much anyone should pay attention to this.
By far the best post in this thread. Well Said.
milo
Sep 6, 07:52 AM
This is what I had anticipated a while back, but Apple went and invested in the Mini as the quasi-set-top-box. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wonder if they would change horses mid stream, as it were. I think the video AE would be cool, but it's not quite mainstream enough for regular folk. The Mini, on the other hand, would be sufficiently mainstream if Apple cut the price a little bit and made Front Row a little more robust (and included a DVI to HDMI cable ;)).
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
toddybody
Mar 22, 07:00 PM
FYI guys, just in case we need a refresher here since it been a while. I hope this helps to jog some memories.
Car Wallpaper Girls. girls and
muscle cars and hot girls
or jan -muscle-car-girls-
Glideslope
Apr 30, 04:17 PM
Get ready. It's going to be "Magical". :apple:
Chupa Chupa
Apr 4, 12:10 PM
OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.
1) Obviously the security guard was trained or he wouldn't have the skill to hit the thief in the head. This was not a point blank shooting, it was done during a fire fight.
2) Shooting suspects in the head is criminal IF the criminal is fleeing or makes an motion he is surrendering, or has surrendered. However, self-defense is never illegal. When under attack the correct measure to take is to find a safe harbor and barring that shoot to kill. Based on the facts here the guard took the correct and necessary step, regardless of the sad outcome.
1) Obviously the security guard was trained or he wouldn't have the skill to hit the thief in the head. This was not a point blank shooting, it was done during a fire fight.
2) Shooting suspects in the head is criminal IF the criminal is fleeing or makes an motion he is surrendering, or has surrendered. However, self-defense is never illegal. When under attack the correct measure to take is to find a safe harbor and barring that shoot to kill. Based on the facts here the guard took the correct and necessary step, regardless of the sad outcome.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 12:55 PM
It makes more sense for Apple to wait for tomorrow, anyway. This way, they can avoid being drowned out by the other manufacturer's announcements and simultaneously steel their fanfare. They'll probably do something like "New, with Merom, and more..." and add on another fancy feature or two to each thing to outdo the other laptop guys.
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 4, 07:55 PM
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
Hmm...I think Belkin calls this 802.11n. This isn't new. Gimme a break. People are really scrounging around deep now.
Look Apple has been keeping secrets it wants to be secret very secret for over a year now. The rumor sites have been so off this year, except for the obvious, that they'd need a power plant to get them back to being on. I'm not buying any of it. I'll be sorely disapponted if all we get is a Disney movie store, a 80GB iPod, a 23" iMac, and an array of colorful nanos. Zzzzz. Put me to sleep.
The nano was the last buzzworthy product Apple has put out in a year (I'll spare you the MPB jokes). Apple is due with something cool; something to compete with PS3 dollars this Xmas.
Hmm...I think Belkin calls this 802.11n. This isn't new. Gimme a break. People are really scrounging around deep now.
Look Apple has been keeping secrets it wants to be secret very secret for over a year now. The rumor sites have been so off this year, except for the obvious, that they'd need a power plant to get them back to being on. I'm not buying any of it. I'll be sorely disapponted if all we get is a Disney movie store, a 80GB iPod, a 23" iMac, and an array of colorful nanos. Zzzzz. Put me to sleep.
The nano was the last buzzworthy product Apple has put out in a year (I'll spare you the MPB jokes). Apple is due with something cool; something to compete with PS3 dollars this Xmas.
anthonylambert
Apr 19, 08:02 AM
This is the GUI wars all over again... Last time Apple sued Microsoft for copying their GUI desktop to make Windows....
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
3N16MA
Mar 30, 12:24 PM
Apple should know all about trademark violations (eg: iPhone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone), iOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_IOS), Mighty Mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Mighty_Mouse)) but App Store is too generic. Like if instead of "iPod", they called it "MP3 Player" and then suing Creative or Archos when they release a device advertised as an MP3 Player or called "Creative MP3 Player" for instance.
MP3 player is a broad term to refer to a whole class of products just like DVD player. App Store was not a generic or broad term used to describe anything before Apple made it popular. They put those two words together and created a brand out of it.
MP3 player is a broad term to refer to a whole class of products just like DVD player. App Store was not a generic or broad term used to describe anything before Apple made it popular. They put those two words together and created a brand out of it.
diamond.g
Apr 19, 01:26 PM
Heh, if you can do it in 35 hours then it is not 40 hours worth of work, is it? :)
Touche!
Touche!
PeterQVenkman
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.