milbournosphere
Apr 20, 12:53 PM
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction...after reading some more, you are correct. Gotta RTFA next time.:o
e-coli
Apr 30, 01:30 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Silentwave
Sep 18, 06:44 PM
A 10megapixel phone will record more clearly the low quality picture that comes from these tiny lenses.
It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.
There IS a limit as to what can be done at a given price point. Eventually the cost of a good lens for it will outweigh the benefits.
Sticking a 10mp sensor in a phone to me is ridiculous. Very few people ever need 10mp, and if they do they get a real camera instead. Not only does the phone have a very limited set of potential lens features, but the lens will generally be low quality and poorly corrected unless you spend a significant amount of money for a good one. Even then size will become an issue.
All a 10mp phone will do is be unusable in anything but superb light. It'll probably have even worse dynamic range than existing phones, record murky detail, and have the poorest signal to noise ratio on the planet.
It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.
There IS a limit as to what can be done at a given price point. Eventually the cost of a good lens for it will outweigh the benefits.
Sticking a 10mp sensor in a phone to me is ridiculous. Very few people ever need 10mp, and if they do they get a real camera instead. Not only does the phone have a very limited set of potential lens features, but the lens will generally be low quality and poorly corrected unless you spend a significant amount of money for a good one. Even then size will become an issue.
All a 10mp phone will do is be unusable in anything but superb light. It'll probably have even worse dynamic range than existing phones, record murky detail, and have the poorest signal to noise ratio on the planet.
EspressoLove
Apr 23, 01:14 AM
Yes it is a deal breaker. I actually spend quite a bit of time in bed after lights out surfing and reading, keeping up with stuff (I am doing it at this moment) with the brightness at the lowest level +1 to not disturb my wife, and its definitely not enough to see the keyboard.
...
If it is absolutely deal breaker for you then you might look at Glowing fluorescent keyboard stickers (http://www.amazon.com/Glowing-fluorescent-English-keyboard-stickers/dp/B004CEN1VU) ...
I'd think it's not nearly as good as Apple's backlight (and you can't ramp it up, or turn it off :eek:)
For me it would be nice to have KB backlight, but not a big deal
...
If it is absolutely deal breaker for you then you might look at Glowing fluorescent keyboard stickers (http://www.amazon.com/Glowing-fluorescent-English-keyboard-stickers/dp/B004CEN1VU) ...
I'd think it's not nearly as good as Apple's backlight (and you can't ramp it up, or turn it off :eek:)
For me it would be nice to have KB backlight, but not a big deal
thedbp
Oct 12, 08:23 PM
Ultimately: who cares?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Yes, I'm sure you came to that conclusion after spending countless hours with the man, learning about him, talking with him, and generally getting to know him on a human-to-human level.
Cuz, if you're just saying that he sucks as a person without having done that, it would mean you're a very sad and judgmental person who should spend much less time worrying about celebrities.
So its a good thing you got to know him before you said that, otherwise it is you who would suck.
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Yes, I'm sure you came to that conclusion after spending countless hours with the man, learning about him, talking with him, and generally getting to know him on a human-to-human level.
Cuz, if you're just saying that he sucks as a person without having done that, it would mean you're a very sad and judgmental person who should spend much less time worrying about celebrities.
So its a good thing you got to know him before you said that, otherwise it is you who would suck.
airamerica
Oct 27, 11:11 AM
I know the planet is doomed and that we are all going to drown under super high sea levels BUT I just can't see the point in groups like Greenpeace.
I mean, they bang on about this and that, looking for big companies to target. It just stinks... Have you seen that raft (boat) they sail around in - it is hardly a pin-up for ecological travel.
Greenpeace you are a product of the 20th Century, turning to ever more desperate methods to get your message out. Take your tree hugging ideology and put it to good use somewhere else - fight Aids, cure cancer, help the disabled etc.
Apple and it's partners or competitors crack on! Do your thing, if you can become 'green', go for it. If not, we're all doomed anyway!
AA
I mean, they bang on about this and that, looking for big companies to target. It just stinks... Have you seen that raft (boat) they sail around in - it is hardly a pin-up for ecological travel.
Greenpeace you are a product of the 20th Century, turning to ever more desperate methods to get your message out. Take your tree hugging ideology and put it to good use somewhere else - fight Aids, cure cancer, help the disabled etc.
Apple and it's partners or competitors crack on! Do your thing, if you can become 'green', go for it. If not, we're all doomed anyway!
AA
Glideslope
Apr 19, 07:31 PM
Good Luck. :apple:
Sydde
Apr 11, 08:09 PM
Is it emissions regulation or just plain laziness by the automakers?
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
0815
Apr 29, 07:01 AM
I'm glad both companies make a record profit ...
I don't think the two companies can really be compared directly to each other. There is lots of overlap and one would have to have a closer look at the overlap area only. Both of areas where they make more than the other.
I don't think the two companies can really be compared directly to each other. There is lots of overlap and one would have to have a closer look at the overlap area only. Both of areas where they make more than the other.
KPOM
Apr 22, 11:50 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Stridder44
Apr 28, 06:15 PM
Well done Apple. :)
babyj
Sep 19, 03:44 PM
Honestly I think movies will come to other countries before TV Shows do. Movies are more universal than TV Shows are, each country has their own TV Shows but everyone wants to watch Lord of the Rings.
I'd of thought movies will come to the rest of the world pretty quickly. There shouldn't be any licensing issues so its probably more due to logistics than anything else.
TV is totally different as most of the main programmes are already licensed to other broadcasters for other markets. Which would make selling episodes online outside of the home market tricky, it'll happen one day but it will take time.
I doubt I'll be buying any movies or tv shows when they come to the UK, I've never bought a single tune before now from iTunes. I run about 6-12 months behind everyone else and buy cds and dvds when they've been reduced, it works out a lot cheaper.
I'd of thought movies will come to the rest of the world pretty quickly. There shouldn't be any licensing issues so its probably more due to logistics than anything else.
TV is totally different as most of the main programmes are already licensed to other broadcasters for other markets. Which would make selling episodes online outside of the home market tricky, it'll happen one day but it will take time.
I doubt I'll be buying any movies or tv shows when they come to the UK, I've never bought a single tune before now from iTunes. I run about 6-12 months behind everyone else and buy cds and dvds when they've been reduced, it works out a lot cheaper.
linux2mac
May 3, 01:05 PM
It's not just about power. I would never buy an iMac because I like being able to actually upgrade my components as they get older. With the form factor of the iMac, you get all of the disadvantages of a notebook (less harddrive bays, less ram slots, no expansion slots) with all of the disadvantages of a desktop (namely, it's not portable). It just seems silly to me.
Additionally, I hate 16:9 displays (16:9 is tv widescreen, 16:10 is computer widescreen) and I would much rather use my own displays (2x dell ultrasharps) than the ones apple makes, so building the display into the computer is a disadvantage to me.
Sigh... It's a shame really, I don't need nearly the kind of power that even the lowest Mac Pro has, but it's the only desktop mac that I could buy at this point.
Don't despair.
An Apple Patent May Hint at a Mini Tower Desktop...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/04/an-apple-patent-may-hint-at-a-mini-tower-desktop-with-usb-30.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/.a/6a0120a5580826970c01347fbb924f970c-pi
Additionally, I hate 16:9 displays (16:9 is tv widescreen, 16:10 is computer widescreen) and I would much rather use my own displays (2x dell ultrasharps) than the ones apple makes, so building the display into the computer is a disadvantage to me.
Sigh... It's a shame really, I don't need nearly the kind of power that even the lowest Mac Pro has, but it's the only desktop mac that I could buy at this point.
Don't despair.
An Apple Patent May Hint at a Mini Tower Desktop...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/04/an-apple-patent-may-hint-at-a-mini-tower-desktop-with-usb-30.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/.a/6a0120a5580826970c01347fbb924f970c-pi
ju5tin81
Sep 14, 09:54 AM
Definitely need bigger HD's in the laptops now... 60 in the MB 80 in the MBP! Not really cutting it when there is a 80GB iPod!
Not just bigger discs but reasonable prices. The mini's apple upgrade 60-120GB costs �100 and on the MB it costs �180! :eek: How come? Don't they use the same disks?
Sorry, just ranting now... I'd just love to be able to buy a decent 'off the peg' machine that doesn't need upgrades....
I'm in the market for a new MB, doubtful at this next event, but hopefully soon! (and with a much bigger disk as standard):p
Not just bigger discs but reasonable prices. The mini's apple upgrade 60-120GB costs �100 and on the MB it costs �180! :eek: How come? Don't they use the same disks?
Sorry, just ranting now... I'd just love to be able to buy a decent 'off the peg' machine that doesn't need upgrades....
I'm in the market for a new MB, doubtful at this next event, but hopefully soon! (and with a much bigger disk as standard):p
KnightWRX
Apr 19, 08:01 PM
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
After having seen the actual claims, I don't think so. Apple was forced to do this. Notice there are quite a few trademark claims in there, relating to icon design, and trade dress claims.
The problem with Trademarks is that if Apple doesn't enforce them, they will lose them. As such, their hand is forced in this. However, just the trademark claims would make for one small suit and would make it so some of them might get thrown out. Enter the design patent claims to "pad" the lawsuit and to use as bargaining chips.
In the end, Apple may just drop the patent claims during settlement negotations and get awards for all their trademarks, which is probably what they are seeking.
After having seen the actual claims, I don't think so. Apple was forced to do this. Notice there are quite a few trademark claims in there, relating to icon design, and trade dress claims.
The problem with Trademarks is that if Apple doesn't enforce them, they will lose them. As such, their hand is forced in this. However, just the trademark claims would make for one small suit and would make it so some of them might get thrown out. Enter the design patent claims to "pad" the lawsuit and to use as bargaining chips.
In the end, Apple may just drop the patent claims during settlement negotations and get awards for all their trademarks, which is probably what they are seeking.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 15, 06:26 PM
This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Apple will most likely buy a platform from a manufacturer like SonyEricsson. That doesnt mean it will look or feel like a SonyEricsson. LG has bought platforms from SE and they differ quite a lot from SE's phones.
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Apple will most likely buy a platform from a manufacturer like SonyEricsson. That doesnt mean it will look or feel like a SonyEricsson. LG has bought platforms from SE and they differ quite a lot from SE's phones.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 5, 09:58 PM
Unless you have very fast connection and a nice big fat download limit movies from the iTunes store will be a little pointless. I'm not saying being able to download a feature length movie wouldn't good but until the net goes faster and download limits increase I can't really see too many people downloading.
If the price of the download is similar to the DVD I'll be buying the DVD, I still like having a tangible product.
If the price of the download is similar to the DVD I'll be buying the DVD, I still like having a tangible product.
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I wonder, if in this day and age of "find my iPhone" and all the location-enabled apps on an iPhone, if it's not actually harder-to-the-point-of-impossible to ensure such information is immediately, constantly erased.
bennyhenry
Apr 20, 02:02 PM
I've just used the software on my iPhone 4 backup, and was looking at timeline and the locations. I noticed that at the same time point, the map was showing use in Swindon (where I am) and High Wycombe (65 miles away), as well as in London (80 miles away) at the next date stamp, but i've never been to either of those places ever with my iPhone.
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
MacRumors
Sep 12, 02:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple today announced an update to its full-sized iPod line (http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html). Among the enhancements are new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, Pac Man, Tetris, Texas Holdem, Vortex, and Zuma), Gapless playback (#1 request according to Jobs), a 60% brighter display, and longer battery life. The new iPod is available immediately in the following models:
30 GB: $249
-Black or White
-14 hr music playback, 4 hr slideshow, 3.5 hr video
80 GB: $349
-Black or White
-20 hr music playback, 6 hr slideshow, 6.5 hr video
Apple today announced an update to its full-sized iPod line (http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html). Among the enhancements are new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, Pac Man, Tetris, Texas Holdem, Vortex, and Zuma), Gapless playback (#1 request according to Jobs), a 60% brighter display, and longer battery life. The new iPod is available immediately in the following models:
30 GB: $249
-Black or White
-14 hr music playback, 4 hr slideshow, 3.5 hr video
80 GB: $349
-Black or White
-20 hr music playback, 6 hr slideshow, 6.5 hr video
mazola
Sep 5, 03:15 PM
Steve's debuting a new series of "I'm a Mac" TV ads
:P
:P
bloodycape
Sep 12, 06:44 PM
Too bad they didn't keep the 60gig and set its price at $300 and upgrade it also. They could have made a real killing there.
Cougarcat
Apr 30, 05:24 PM
Okay --
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
It will be many many years before that becomes widespread in the US. Until it does, Blu-Ray will remain alive.
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
It will be many many years before that becomes widespread in the US. Until it does, Blu-Ray will remain alive.