Bonte
Sep 20, 08:30 AM
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 04:27 AM
Live Coverage here...
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
blueflame
Aug 29, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
undheim
Nov 5, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
mytdave
May 2, 11:29 AM
Why does Apple even have the "open safe files after download" option in Safari? If they insist on keeping that "feature" in Safari, the least they could do is have it off by default.
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
zgh1999
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Multimedia
Oct 6, 10:02 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
Huntn
Mar 13, 08:00 AM
The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.
Counter views?
Counter views?
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
rxse7en
Oct 20, 01:30 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
B
B
dgree03
Apr 28, 02:06 PM
By the "real world" you are ignoring the vast majority of users who need nothing like the power of a standard desktop today, and won't need software requiring a decacore processor in 10 years. Power users will always have PCs. The other 90% of humanity will do the majority of their work on tablets.
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software. Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software. Flash can barely run on his computer also.
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
Gaelic1
Nov 1, 12:21 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
mr evil brkfast
Oct 7, 11:12 AM
I think it is pretty sad when the comparisons are not between the best of the best of each manufacturer and Apple still looses with the top of the line.
I dunno what AMD's best is but to see how close/ or far behind Apple is the comparison should at least include a 2.5-2.8 ghz pentium 4.
I dunno what AMD's best is but to see how close/ or far behind Apple is the comparison should at least include a 2.5-2.8 ghz pentium 4.
MacAddict1978
Apr 9, 11:17 AM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Downloads.com and versiontracker.com have almost always had what I needed. Though, I really haven't needed tons of stuff like I did on Windows.
For me it was frustrating the first day or so. Just because everything was actually easier and made sense. I didn't have to take 10 steps to do one simple thing. Emailing a picture for intance. Drag and drop it on the mail icon, and it opens attached in an email. Windows has copied a lot of that over the years.
Keyboard shortcuts are the real big thing. Some are the same but others... like when you pull down a menu and you see characters that aren't on the keyboard Had to learn that stuff. That was annoying, but you learn them
Downloads.com and versiontracker.com have almost always had what I needed. Though, I really haven't needed tons of stuff like I did on Windows.
For me it was frustrating the first day or so. Just because everything was actually easier and made sense. I didn't have to take 10 steps to do one simple thing. Emailing a picture for intance. Drag and drop it on the mail icon, and it opens attached in an email. Windows has copied a lot of that over the years.
Keyboard shortcuts are the real big thing. Some are the same but others... like when you pull down a menu and you see characters that aren't on the keyboard Had to learn that stuff. That was annoying, but you learn them
springscansing
Oct 13, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:46 AM
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:23 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
BC2009
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
Sexual orientation is just another excuse for bullying. Its been going on for centuries even before it was about sexual orientation (e.g.: social standing, wealth, ethnicity, religion, body weight, athletic ability, intellectual ability -- pick one).
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
It has always been wrong and it needs to be prevented, but I don't see it changing any time soon. If it ever becomes "main stream" for teenagers to be homosexual or bisexual, then bullies will just choose something else to differentiate on and then bully people based on that. It's sad.
The best defense is parents, teachers, and school counselors building up the self esteem of children so as to prevent others from tearing it down. The truth of the matter for these kids is that it does "get better". The best quote in their was that bullies are at the "height of their power" at age 15 or 16 -- it's true. Usually, bullies do what they do because they are insecure about some deficiency they perceive in themselves and so they try to feel powerful by tearing others down. That insecurity translates into a higher likelihood for failures later in life and unfortunately the easiest people to bully when they are older is their own spouse and children.
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
Benjamins
Apr 9, 04:54 AM
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Timothy
Mar 19, 01:43 PM
Long post, my apologies.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
0 comments:
Post a Comment