musiclover137
Aug 23, 05:32 PM
Which is probably why they sued. Knowing they are running out of cash, they figured "Let's jump on the bandwagon and sue someone".
If you believe that, then please give me a valid reason why Apple settled for 100 million...
If you believe that, then please give me a valid reason why Apple settled for 100 million...
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 12:51 PM
wake up then, because it won't happen for awhile.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
I do agree that the look of the current enclosure is great, and it's doubtful we'll get a change to the look of the enclosure anytime soon. However, I can see them changing the enclosure to match up more with what the regular MB allows, i.e. easy access to the HDD bay so users can swap out hard drives ease. Now that would be nice.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
I do agree that the look of the current enclosure is great, and it's doubtful we'll get a change to the look of the enclosure anytime soon. However, I can see them changing the enclosure to match up more with what the regular MB allows, i.e. easy access to the HDD bay so users can swap out hard drives ease. Now that would be nice.
ryanw
Mar 30, 11:26 AM
By that argument, aren't windows and office generic terms???
iGary
Sep 14, 10:55 AM
That's cool, I was told I was delusional when I said that Meroms would ship in mid-2006 and the eMac would be replaced by an iMac with GMA950 too. :D
Me too, when I said iMac would never get a Conroe chip. :D
Me too, when I said iMac would never get a Conroe chip. :D
prady16
Aug 31, 07:50 PM
The wait is getting sweeter! :)
milo
Aug 28, 04:18 PM
Speaking of returns, is there a possibility of buying the machine and if they don't auto-upgrade me to the new one, return it and buy a new one?
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Actually NONE of the pc companies have made the transition. They haven't shipped a single machine with the new chips, just made announcements of shipments days or weeks away (and that was just earlier today...even if apple was behind, they'd only be hours behind, not even a full day). Right now apple is only behind in press releases, which has nothing to do with being ready to adapt to an intel platform. Now ranting about PC companies that haven't shipped the new machines yet...THAT is ridiculous.
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Actually NONE of the pc companies have made the transition. They haven't shipped a single machine with the new chips, just made announcements of shipments days or weeks away (and that was just earlier today...even if apple was behind, they'd only be hours behind, not even a full day). Right now apple is only behind in press releases, which has nothing to do with being ready to adapt to an intel platform. Now ranting about PC companies that haven't shipped the new machines yet...THAT is ridiculous.
TheSideshow
Apr 28, 05:09 PM
Strong article, MacRumors.
Goldfinger
Sep 26, 01:06 PM
I hope for Apple that they're going to sell it unlocked. I would probably buy one (if it turns out to be any good) but locked phones are illegal here.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 12:37 PM
Apple, Google, or my phone provider storing this information in their servers is a different issue than it being stored on the phone.
Yes, because it's out of your possession and likely easily accessible by those who want it. The data on your phone, however, is in your possession.
Yes, because it's out of your possession and likely easily accessible by those who want it. The data on your phone, however, is in your possession.
Misplaced Mage
Sep 18, 05:58 PM
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
thequicksilver
Aug 24, 07:33 AM
It's the sensible thing to do.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
cere
Apr 14, 03:25 PM
The above text contains:
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
Pot, meet kettle.
I'll respond to you one last time, to try to clarify your confusion.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english.
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
Pot, meet kettle.
I'll respond to you one last time, to try to clarify your confusion.
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english.
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.
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.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:09 PM
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
There may be lots of TV options out there, but right now Apple isn't servicing any of them. They're losing potential business to 3rd Party companies like Elgato. If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
There may be lots of TV options out there, but right now Apple isn't servicing any of them. They're losing potential business to 3rd Party companies like Elgato. If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
aussie_geek
May 4, 03:34 AM
I can't see how those of us wanting to hook things up to our 27" iMac could be a that small group. I'm more inclined to believe this limitation has to do with Apple protectionism. I mean, like I said in a post a few pages up, there are no industry standard input ports (HDMI/DVI...) and the TB port is limited to only a small fraction of a ppm of the input devices on the market.
Sure hoping for a way to work arond Apple on this one, without going the usual Apple route - with a gazillion adapters.
Yep- I agree. There should always be one legacy port on a device. Mini display port would be the one.
Sure hoping for a way to work arond Apple on this one, without going the usual Apple route - with a gazillion adapters.
Yep- I agree. There should always be one legacy port on a device. Mini display port would be the one.
MacAddict1978
Apr 30, 04:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
dkaff
Apr 4, 12:41 PM
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
cwt1nospam
Feb 23, 08:38 PM
Also, android has free anti-virus scanners available in there market. Apple may have some too. I think mcafee is just trying to sell product, but if I was them i would want to sell my product to EVERY person who had Android or iOS based phone, simply because that is a VERY large user base.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
freebooter
Sep 14, 12:14 PM
A camera isnt only about MP. The weakest link of the camera in phones is the optics. You just cant get good pics from a camera phone due to the limited formfactor, even if you had 3200 MP.
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
There are software solutions that promise a different future than what you envision. DXO Optics made an announcement recently about using software to drastically correct cell phone camera pictures. Shouldn't be long...
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
There are software solutions that promise a different future than what you envision. DXO Optics made an announcement recently about using software to drastically correct cell phone camera pictures. Shouldn't be long...
840quadra
Oct 12, 02:01 PM
Those look Burgundy to me, I was hoping for a more proper red, but alas those are Mock ups!
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 4, 10:18 PM
an airport express that can stream video... could I be any less underwhelmed? :rolleyes:
Only if you understood less about the challenge of streaming NTSC-quality video wirelessly. ;)
Only if you understood less about the challenge of streaming NTSC-quality video wirelessly. ;)
macnews
Sep 27, 02:25 AM
Did anyone notice Disney introduced their own cell phone service? Normally not much but given Steve's close ties to Disney perhaps they have shared some info? www.disneymobile.com
Some very interesting features, makes me think of things that might be available with a mac phone service.
Some very interesting features, makes me think of things that might be available with a mac phone service.
alent1234
Apr 22, 08:06 AM
You'll go nutz in couple decades when our CPU's aren't even in our homes anymore. Start to get used to the idea of "cloud" slowly :)
not going to happen
the entire history of computing is giving more power to more people. the cloud has always been there, even with the first PC's. but the trend is to give more features to less powerful devices
not going to happen
the entire history of computing is giving more power to more people. the cloud has always been there, even with the first PC's. but the trend is to give more features to less powerful devices
kavika411
Apr 22, 12:46 PM
This may have been asked and answered before, but is the common belief that USB and Firewire will be completely gone soon? For example, my Macbook Air has room for only two ports - a mini-display drive, and a USB drive. Is the idea that the Thunderbolt drive will replace the USB, and that purchasers of the new Air will use an adapter of some sort for "old" USB peripherals moving forward?