musiclover137
Aug 23, 11:06 PM
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
fastlane1588
Aug 29, 08:36 AM
great, nothing....
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 10:41 AM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
wizard
Sep 9, 01:42 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster. Though it's not the best implementation.
That is what I thought but like I said I don't follow Intel deeply. I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again. As to AMD I'm not 100% on their quad either but I think it is a single chip implementation. Maybe a few moths slower in coming but the impression is a solid offering.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
Dave
Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster. Though it's not the best implementation.
That is what I thought but like I said I don't follow Intel deeply. I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again. As to AMD I'm not 100% on their quad either but I think it is a single chip implementation. Maybe a few moths slower in coming but the impression is a solid offering.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
Dave
Bonte
Sep 5, 08:30 AM
Maybe Apple wants to be ahead of the rumors. :)
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon.gif
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon.gif
cult hero
Mar 22, 03:03 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
Maddix
Apr 22, 06:45 PM
I would also prefer AMD, but I don't think there will be Llanos low-powered enough for the MBA.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
AMD would be producing better CPU's via increased profits if Apple chose them over Intel from the start.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
AMD would be producing better CPU's via increased profits if Apple chose them over Intel from the start.
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
MacinDoc
Sep 14, 03:55 PM
Why is everyone saying that Aperture 2.0 announcement is too little???
Photokina is all about *photo*. Aperture is about digital *photo* workflow. Its workflow features were pretty groundbreaking a year ago. Yes, it was buggy before first update. Yes, it was slow, and still is too some extent. But the features they showed -- autostacking, the loupe, the library -- are *fantastic*. They had a year to improve -- why not hold a big event to show it off!
No one would say that Adobe hosting an event to show new version of Photoshop would be to little, right? Same goes for Apple.
I'm desperately waiting for the update. If AP update (2.0, 1.5 -- whatever) improves speed on new Mac Pros, my order for a MP + AP goes right in. And $3.5K go to pay for it.
I, for one, can't remember the last time Apple had a press event to introduce just one item (although the iPod case introduced along with the iPod HiFi was a bit of a joke, but then again, Apple promoted that event as the introduction of a few minor fun things). Steve knows that the faithful hunger for "One More Thing"; it's our well-known addiction, and a large part of what keeps Apple in business.
Photokina is all about *photo*. Aperture is about digital *photo* workflow. Its workflow features were pretty groundbreaking a year ago. Yes, it was buggy before first update. Yes, it was slow, and still is too some extent. But the features they showed -- autostacking, the loupe, the library -- are *fantastic*. They had a year to improve -- why not hold a big event to show it off!
No one would say that Adobe hosting an event to show new version of Photoshop would be to little, right? Same goes for Apple.
I'm desperately waiting for the update. If AP update (2.0, 1.5 -- whatever) improves speed on new Mac Pros, my order for a MP + AP goes right in. And $3.5K go to pay for it.
I, for one, can't remember the last time Apple had a press event to introduce just one item (although the iPod case introduced along with the iPod HiFi was a bit of a joke, but then again, Apple promoted that event as the introduction of a few minor fun things). Steve knows that the faithful hunger for "One More Thing"; it's our well-known addiction, and a large part of what keeps Apple in business.
KingYaba
Apr 15, 03:10 PM
Now that it's part of the platform Apple has no excuse for not including it. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a MBP with this platform that still only has 2.0 connectors.
And no BluRay. ;)
And no BluRay. ;)
daneoni
Sep 12, 03:03 PM
Looks like the iPods are still at 5G with some tweaks, which is weird considering they had a whole year. I feel no urge to upgrade my current model no major difference for me. Search functions would be pretty sweet though. Wonder why they didnt just give the current 5G iPods that feature with a software update.
The new nanos look really tempting. a 4GB silver would go nicely with my PB.
The new nanos look really tempting. a 4GB silver would go nicely with my PB.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 10:07 AM
It *is* private now. This information isn't broadcast anywhere but your own personal computer in the form of an encrypted backup file. The information won't go anywhere but with you and your property.
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
toddybody
Apr 22, 11:51 AM
It should be a dual-core Llano, not Sandy Bridge.
Yeah, but Im pretty sure Apple is gonna follow their MO of matching the MBA with the guts of the 13 MBP...just like we had a C2D and 320m.
Gosh dangit! If only they didnt handicap the 13 inch MBP with that horribly archaic display res. I dont know why people arent more "up in arms" about that. Why didnt they just give it the 1440x900 of the 13 MBA!!!!!!! Grrrrr!!!!! :mad:
Yeah, but Im pretty sure Apple is gonna follow their MO of matching the MBA with the guts of the 13 MBP...just like we had a C2D and 320m.
Gosh dangit! If only they didnt handicap the 13 inch MBP with that horribly archaic display res. I dont know why people arent more "up in arms" about that. Why didnt they just give it the 1440x900 of the 13 MBA!!!!!!! Grrrrr!!!!! :mad:
AML707
Jul 14, 11:41 AM
Ok, has anyone even stopped to think what graphic they will use on the heatsink cover. You know like the current PMs have "G5". Are they going to leave it blank? Maybe C2:cool: :confused:
roland.g
Aug 28, 02:40 PM
Unfortunately, cats are known liars.
Maxiseller
Sep 14, 09:35 AM
Yeh I think we all need to realize that this is a photo convention. Its almost certainly not going to hold a large interest for non-photographers or at least people who don't use photoshop or photo manipulation software.
If you're hoping for a typical Keynote with loads of new products for consumers...well we'll have some moaning on our hands!
If you're hoping for a typical Keynote with loads of new products for consumers...well we'll have some moaning on our hands!
suzerain
Sep 26, 08:41 AM
There are vast areas that Verizon and Sprint don't cover in the US, too. It's that way with every single cell phone company in the US.
Apple would have to make at least 2 different phones for that to work. There are two primary cellular networks in the US: GSM and CDMA. If Apple makes just a GSM phone, they're also making a phone that can be used in almost every other country in the world. Europe and Asia are the real cell phone markets, not the US.
Yeah, but not if it's locked. I had to call up my provider and beg for my unlock code so that I could use *my* phone in Asia, and then they said yes, and never sent it to me. Call them back, and...well..rinse, repeat.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
Apple would have to make at least 2 different phones for that to work. There are two primary cellular networks in the US: GSM and CDMA. If Apple makes just a GSM phone, they're also making a phone that can be used in almost every other country in the world. Europe and Asia are the real cell phone markets, not the US.
Yeah, but not if it's locked. I had to call up my provider and beg for my unlock code so that I could use *my* phone in Asia, and then they said yes, and never sent it to me. Call them back, and...well..rinse, repeat.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
CalBoy
Apr 25, 01:54 AM
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:34 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:26 AM
His name is Butters? :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
NebulaClash
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
Oooh! Grammar Nazis fighting for high stakes!
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 20, 01:22 PM
Wasn't this the same info they told us about when they were collecting signal information?
Location and signal strength.
Location and signal strength.
aristobrat
Sep 4, 09:22 PM
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).
I'd be surprised if the majority of the market isn't stuck with set-top boxes that make products like Elgato useless.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the market isn't stuck with set-top boxes that make products like Elgato useless.
donlphi
Sep 5, 12:25 PM
Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be another device like the Apple hi-fi. What a let down that was!
So we will get movie service from iTunes, a new iPOD NANO with a metal scratchproof case, a new Airport extreme with Audio and Video OUT... no hi-def for sure... and a bump in processor speed for the whole line.
Am I really leaving anything out?
We'll see next week. The hype always just creates this big let down for me. Hopefully my negative attitude will bring me happiness, regardless of what is presented.
WHY SUCH A LONG WAIT???
So we will get movie service from iTunes, a new iPOD NANO with a metal scratchproof case, a new Airport extreme with Audio and Video OUT... no hi-def for sure... and a bump in processor speed for the whole line.
Am I really leaving anything out?
We'll see next week. The hype always just creates this big let down for me. Hopefully my negative attitude will bring me happiness, regardless of what is presented.
WHY SUCH A LONG WAIT???