pyroza
Apr 25, 06:19 PM
Getting rid of the optical drive would be stupid. No way to burn CDs (yes, I buy CDs because I like supporting artists and I like higher quality music) and no way to watch DVDs (no DVD player or TV here in my dorm room).
EricNau
Sep 13, 09:21 PM
I dont' think the "iPhone" would have a traditional keypad at all.
Yes, we could just go back 100 years and have one button - 0 for operator. That's efficient. :rolleyes:
Yes, we could just go back 100 years and have one button - 0 for operator. That's efficient. :rolleyes:
jamesryanbell
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
Do people really game on an Air?
Yes, they really do.
Yes, they really do.
DaveK
Sep 13, 11:36 PM
I think Steve Jobs has done a good job of explaining why they did something so un-Apple like. In the USA Today article about it, he told the reporter that there was no way they could announce the movie store but not also let consumers in on the fact that something like the iTV was coming soon. Otherwise Apple would be asked the obvious question of "Great, I can buy a movie, but what am I going to watch it on?" knowing that "Your Mac and your iPod" isn't enough of an answer.
-Zadillo
I agree, but somehow watching content on "Your Mac and your iPod" until recently, was a good enough answer, and doesn't seem to have affected TV show sales on iTunes, even if it wasn't easy to watch them on our TV. I hope Steve keeps up this new thing of letting consumers in on what's ahead (the usual OS previews excluded).
Start the countdown to Q1 2007 when movie sales will take off.
-Zadillo
I agree, but somehow watching content on "Your Mac and your iPod" until recently, was a good enough answer, and doesn't seem to have affected TV show sales on iTunes, even if it wasn't easy to watch them on our TV. I hope Steve keeps up this new thing of letting consumers in on what's ahead (the usual OS previews excluded).
Start the countdown to Q1 2007 when movie sales will take off.
Drag'nGT
Apr 30, 02:02 PM
For the Thunderbolt external drive discussion. What's the point of a fast connection on a rotational HDD and especially if the connection from the primary source (internal HDD) is slower than the external interface?
sigma8
Mar 23, 06:16 PM
No one likes drunk drivers. No one. Period. That being said, Apple should not pull the App. Speed trap apps will be next (Trapster)... Keep the app store open to everything thats legal. This is no different than a friend calling you telling you to avoid a check point. Neither is illegal.
I agree. These apps are only letting people share information. If law enforcement doesn't want people avoiding the traps and checkpoints, then they should randomize their placement. They can quickly render these apps useless by simply changing their methods. That solves the problem without impinging or seeming to impinge upon any free speech issues.
In fact, the notion that these apps exist at all demonstrates that people are sharing this information. I'd wager this was happening on forums or IRC (or through other means) on the QT well before the apps themselves were created. If they get the apps removed, it will still be happening. Law enforcement should be glad to learn that their methods have been circumvented, and that they should change them.
I agree. These apps are only letting people share information. If law enforcement doesn't want people avoiding the traps and checkpoints, then they should randomize their placement. They can quickly render these apps useless by simply changing their methods. That solves the problem without impinging or seeming to impinge upon any free speech issues.
In fact, the notion that these apps exist at all demonstrates that people are sharing this information. I'd wager this was happening on forums or IRC (or through other means) on the QT well before the apps themselves were created. If they get the apps removed, it will still be happening. Law enforcement should be glad to learn that their methods have been circumvented, and that they should change them.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
ECUpirate44
Mar 30, 01:14 PM
Remember when Jobs and Gates met for an interview with All Things Digital a few years back? I wonder if things like this tarnish their friendship or if they consider it to be strictly business.
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 12:54 PM
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
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.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
1. Does Apple require Verizon and AT&T to share any information with them?
2. If you leave your phone for service, do the geniuses lift any information from the phone?
And
3. If Apple doesn't have a need for the information, if they don't collect it, then why is it stored on the phone? Why is it unencrypted?
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.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
1. Does Apple require Verizon and AT&T to share any information with them?
2. If you leave your phone for service, do the geniuses lift any information from the phone?
And
3. If Apple doesn't have a need for the information, if they don't collect it, then why is it stored on the phone? Why is it unencrypted?
cwsm
Apr 11, 07:40 AM
You can use Airfoil and Airfoil Speakers to stream music from a PC/Mac to a PC/Mac/iOS/Airport Express device
Tanglewood
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
Well $349 is a lot better price than the $600 when the 60 gig iPod Photo came out two years ago.
Been wanting to up grade this just might give me a reason since I'm beginning to max out my 60 gig.
Been wanting to up grade this just might give me a reason since I'm beginning to max out my 60 gig.
LightSpeed1
May 3, 06:41 PM
Dual ports should have been on the notebooks as well.
I agree with this completely.
I agree with this completely.
Michael383
Apr 17, 05:08 AM
I think Intel's support for both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will be a good thing in the end.
cwt1nospam
Jan 2, 02:04 PM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
runninmac
Aug 31, 12:09 PM
OBVIOUS NEWS STORY!!
Apple will hold a special event during a week long special event!!
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
Apple will hold a special event during a week long special event!!
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
Cooknn
Sep 11, 12:44 PM
A lot of things have to go right for me to be impressed tomorrow.
semana santa guatemala 2011.
semana santa guatemala 2011.
Procesión de Semana Santa
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 12:16 AM
What happens if you did it to a mafia boss?
lexidata
May 3, 10:37 AM
I've just finish chatting with a person on the apple website. She told me that I can use the new imac (21 and 27") thunderbold input to use the imac as an external display. Only if it comes from a thunderbolt output (like an macbook pro for exemple).
MattInOz
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Randall
Aug 28, 03:35 PM
I doubt that Apple will announce any Core 2 Duo upgrades to the MacBook Pro line until Sept 18th at Paris. That is just the way Apple does things, and I think it will be within the appropriate time frame for processor upgrades (It's been just 8 months since the initial release of MBP.)
It will be interresting as this is the first of many processor upgrades from intel's "Core" lineup. If Apple wants to continue to march to the beat of their own drum and feel like they can update their own lines as they see fit, then it would be in their best interest to have multiple upgrades at the same time. In other words upgrade the video card and HDD while you're at it to make it seem like the longer wait was worth while.
It will be interresting as this is the first of many processor upgrades from intel's "Core" lineup. If Apple wants to continue to march to the beat of their own drum and feel like they can update their own lines as they see fit, then it would be in their best interest to have multiple upgrades at the same time. In other words upgrade the video card and HDD while you're at it to make it seem like the longer wait was worth while.
Micjose
Mar 22, 01:16 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
pengu
Sep 18, 12:01 AM
If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
ok. how many times do i have to say this. BAD FOR CONSUMERS. the average joe is locked to whatever phone the carrier offers, or whatever carriers offer the phone. you dont go looking for a car saying "i hope they have this for Shell (ie: petrol -its NOT gas. it is a liquid - company)!", do you?
ok. how many times do i have to say this. BAD FOR CONSUMERS. the average joe is locked to whatever phone the carrier offers, or whatever carriers offer the phone. you dont go looking for a car saying "i hope they have this for Shell (ie: petrol -its NOT gas. it is a liquid - company)!", do you?
iMikeT
Sep 9, 02:53 AM
I wonder how the 24" iMac equiped with a 2.33ghz Core 2 Duo would fare in that benchmark.
snack
Sep 10, 05:10 AM
Kentsfield is Intel's next revision of their "Core" processors which was originally scheduled to be released in the 1st Quarter of 2007. According to the article, it is now planned for late 2006 availability.
Uh, you guys reported this part (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060720090504.shtml) some time ago.
Uh, you guys reported this part (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060720090504.shtml) some time ago.