colmaclean
Mar 22, 01:51 PM
I guess native HDMI input functionality will still be a no-no. I know you can do it with 3rd party adapters, but that's a croc!
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 05:58 AM
Any guesses on the web interface?
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 02:40 PM
Kind of a huge gap, don'cha think? For an extra $100 I can nearly TRIPLE the capacity? Why would I even consider a 30 GB model?
Exactly. More money for Apple.
Exactly. More money for Apple.
e28
Oct 12, 01:01 PM
Umm... how does Penelope Cruz and "convertible" have anything to do with an iPod? Just because Bono, Kanye West, and "red" are together, I don't really see how that equals a new red iPod.
Bernard SG
Apr 29, 03:39 AM
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. Apple does and mobile devices make up a large part of Apple's sales and revenue. They are a tiny blip on the radar percentage wise as far as pc's are concerned, no matter how you spin the numbers. 90% >4.6%. And yes, Apple makes a tremendous amount of money on the products they sell, far more than anyone else, and I realize that most of you take a tremendous amount of personal pride in the money Apple makes. And as a consumer, I find that absolutely bizarre. But that's just me.
As a consumer, it is not irrelevant how much money a company makes when it comes to choosing a product or service to purchase. Apple being super-profitable is comforting to the extent that it means the Apple ecosystem will be sustainable for years to come.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while I agree that the news of its death is highly exaggerated, the current state of things is worrying as far as it means the company, despite its very high market-share in PC OS, is not anymore an industry leader as in bringing out bleeding-edge innovation and inspiring the market: outside of Windows, Office and the XBox, all their initiatives are abysmal failures. That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doomed: it has a high potential and the money for bouncing back, but that will be at the cost of tough, painful decisions they have to make NOW. And meanwhile, the actual leaders, namely Apple and Google are not going to sleep.
As a consumer, it is not irrelevant how much money a company makes when it comes to choosing a product or service to purchase. Apple being super-profitable is comforting to the extent that it means the Apple ecosystem will be sustainable for years to come.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while I agree that the news of its death is highly exaggerated, the current state of things is worrying as far as it means the company, despite its very high market-share in PC OS, is not anymore an industry leader as in bringing out bleeding-edge innovation and inspiring the market: outside of Windows, Office and the XBox, all their initiatives are abysmal failures. That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doomed: it has a high potential and the money for bouncing back, but that will be at the cost of tough, painful decisions they have to make NOW. And meanwhile, the actual leaders, namely Apple and Google are not going to sleep.
DHUK
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If Apple put a proper desktop processor in the iMac, then I'll buy. I want desktop specs not laptop specs if it's going to sit on my desk.
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 05:58 AM
Any guesses on the web interface?
balamw
Sep 10, 06:18 PM
Maybe Steve will be using the new iChat Theater features of Leopard to do his keynote presentation ;)
They've actually created an AI based on a download of Steve's brain into a Mac Pro and will use one of the new VoiceOver personalities as its voice.
Virtual Steve will take over the CEO job immediately Max Headrom style. All future keynotes will be given by Virtual Steve.
B
They've actually created an AI based on a download of Steve's brain into a Mac Pro and will use one of the new VoiceOver personalities as its voice.
Virtual Steve will take over the CEO job immediately Max Headrom style. All future keynotes will be given by Virtual Steve.
B
macadam212
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
I believe Windows Phone market share gains will come largely at the expense of Android. I think iOS will do just fine, as they have great hardware software integration which differentiates them from what Microsoft and Google are doing.
cube
May 3, 11:49 AM
...that if each Thunderbolt port can support six daisy chained pieces of kit, if each one of those was a TB-equipped 30" monitor, we could have a 27" iMac with a 13-screen setup and 387" of screen real-estate?!! I need to buy a bigger house!!!!
Thunderbolt is DisplayPort 1.1a - DisplayPort 1.2 has daisy chain and much more bandwidth than a TB channel.
Even with DP 1.2, the bandwidth of one port is only enough for two 30" displays.
You can only run one 30" display from each Thunderbolt port.
Thunderbolt is DisplayPort 1.1a - DisplayPort 1.2 has daisy chain and much more bandwidth than a TB channel.
Even with DP 1.2, the bandwidth of one port is only enough for two 30" displays.
You can only run one 30" display from each Thunderbolt port.
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 12:25 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
DavidLeblond
Apr 20, 11:34 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 12:48 PM
Sue M$
What about App�� ?
What about App�� ?
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 03:23 AM
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. Apple does and mobile devices make up a large part of Apple's sales and revenue. They are a tiny blip on the radar percentage wise as far as pc's are concerned, no matter how you spin the numbers. 90% >4.6%. And yes, Apple makes a tremendous amount of money on the products they sell, far more than anyone else, and I realize that most of you take a tremendous amount of personal pride in the money Apple makes. And as a consumer, I find that absolutely bizarre. But that's just me.
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 05:58 AM
Any guesses on the web interface?
babyj
Oct 12, 10:01 PM
I really can't believe some of the posts that have been made here.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Forget about the donation that will be made for every sale. Far more important is the number of people that will be educated on life in third world countries as a result of the promotion. We could do with a lot more companies running similar initiatives.
Its a bit sad that people are more interested in a new nano, or a core duo 2 macbook than they are in all the people that die every second of every day. Deaths that the western world could do something about but chooses not to. I for one am ashamed that we do so little to help so many people that suffer so much.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Forget about the donation that will be made for every sale. Far more important is the number of people that will be educated on life in third world countries as a result of the promotion. We could do with a lot more companies running similar initiatives.
Its a bit sad that people are more interested in a new nano, or a core duo 2 macbook than they are in all the people that die every second of every day. Deaths that the western world could do something about but chooses not to. I for one am ashamed that we do so little to help so many people that suffer so much.
balamw
Sep 6, 12:15 PM
I came across this interesting article which says that Amazon is also planning to offer movies online in its store and that it has almost finalized deals with at least 3 of the big studios.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-movies6sep06,0,6420529.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Amazon was also suppsedly working on an iTMS/iPod killer that was to have launched this summer, with a subsidized/free player so perhaps the movie bit is linked to that?
B
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-movies6sep06,0,6420529.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Amazon was also suppsedly working on an iTMS/iPod killer that was to have launched this summer, with a subsidized/free player so perhaps the movie bit is linked to that?
B
iliketyla
Mar 30, 01:45 PM
Microsoft has their own name. I guess they are just trying to protect the descriptive nature of the term. "Microsoft Marketplace, the app store for Windows Phone 7".
Microsoft does not intend to use the trademark.
I don't get why Apple filed for such a descriptive mark anyway. iTunes App Store was what they called it at first, what was wrong with that ? iOS App Store would also save all these legal troubles. Apple App Store another that's perfectly fine.
Ahhh, I didn't realize the first part.
Off topic, have you seen or used a Windows Phone 7 yet?
Microsoft does not intend to use the trademark.
I don't get why Apple filed for such a descriptive mark anyway. iTunes App Store was what they called it at first, what was wrong with that ? iOS App Store would also save all these legal troubles. Apple App Store another that's perfectly fine.
Ahhh, I didn't realize the first part.
Off topic, have you seen or used a Windows Phone 7 yet?
ChazUK
Mar 30, 01:43 PM
It is a market that sells apps. You know, and app market. No need for them to describe it as an App Store since that description would not fly over anyone's head.
But it is an "app store".
But it is an "app store".
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:54 AM
Key things said in your statement. First, believe it or not, people do spend a lot of time out, people have lives. I'm not saying you don't necessarily but, not everyone sits at home. When the time comes when its obvious physical media is actually dead, internet connectivity sure will be more reliable at that point. Its hard to say what data charges and such will be like at that point. Also, not everyone has or is able to get unlimited data so quit acting basing your arguments on that people do. Also, I'm assuming you have AT&T. In case you didn't know AT&T is already sending out messages to people with abnormally high data usage...even to people on unlimited plans saying stop it or we will change your plan to one our current higher end plans....i.e. 4GB. So until, cellular data is stable, reliable and the carriers do NOT want to gouge the customer on data....I want my local storage. One more point, physical media is one thing and local storage in terms of what we're discussing is not exactly the same thing. You're talking about CDs, blu rays and such. I'm talking about digital storage of .mp3/.aac/.mp4 and such. Not exactly the same.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
Surely
Apr 20, 10:14 AM
I doubt the information is accurate.
It is:
About the application the developers made:
To make it less useful for snoops, the spatial and temporal accuracy of the data has been artificially reduced. You can only animate week-by-week even though the data is timed to the second, and if you zoom in you’ll see the points are constrained to a grid, so your exact location is not revealed. The underlying database has no such constraints, unfortunately.
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/
It is:
About the application the developers made:
To make it less useful for snoops, the spatial and temporal accuracy of the data has been artificially reduced. You can only animate week-by-week even though the data is timed to the second, and if you zoom in you’ll see the points are constrained to a grid, so your exact location is not revealed. The underlying database has no such constraints, unfortunately.
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/
stol
Apr 11, 10:59 AM
Both financially and from a space and energy consumption point of view, an Apple TV or an Airport Express is a more efficient solution for this. Apple tends to support only the efficient and simple solutions, not the cumbersome ones.
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
poppe
Sep 5, 10:02 PM
My Guess:
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
daddy-mojo
Sep 15, 06:17 PM
the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.
portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
I still have and use my original 5gb ipod. Came out before christmas, but after 9/11. I remember thinking how expensive it seemed & the state of the country at that point and wondered if anyone would buy it, I got mine in the spring of '02.
portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
I still have and use my original 5gb ipod. Came out before christmas, but after 9/11. I remember thinking how expensive it seemed & the state of the country at that point and wondered if anyone would buy it, I got mine in the spring of '02.