AidenShaw
Apr 28, 10:40 PM
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Oh, you have an honest streak. I like that. ;)
Oh, you have an honest streak. I like that. ;)
berkleeboy210
Sep 26, 09:37 AM
I just bought one of the new BlackBerry's (8703e) for Verizion. That should keep me satisfied until January.
I just want to commend Verizon Wireless on their service though, I ordered the phone at 10pm Last Night, it's already been shipped :)
Anywoo, Bring on the iPhone!
I just want to commend Verizon Wireless on their service though, I ordered the phone at 10pm Last Night, it's already been shipped :)
Anywoo, Bring on the iPhone!
bitfactory
Oct 27, 10:17 AM
Hmmmm, so what you're saying is that a quiet protest (which as an eye-witness I can say this was!!) about a subject they feel strongly about isn't allowed at certain conventions because of the political orientation of the people in charge.
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
I'm sorry, what part of 'private property' don't you people understand?
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
I'm sorry, what part of 'private property' don't you people understand?
rdowns
Aug 31, 04:46 PM
September 12 SteveNote. Well I must have posted that phrase scores of times earlier this year - just didn't think it would be in San Francisco instead of Paris. All the better. Perfect ending to a wonderful Summer 2006.
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Pass the doobie
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Pass the doobie
Icaras
Apr 19, 08:27 AM
word. it's called competition. omg the second car manufacturer designed a car with an engine and 4 wheels, he must be copying. lol
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
dnaida
Apr 4, 11:44 AM
Achievment unlocked!
amols
Jul 14, 02:11 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.
macnulty
Sep 6, 10:25 PM
Finally G5 Powerbooks.
nagromme
Oct 12, 03:39 PM
I'm saying that Africa will sort out it's own problems in time, when those individuals who recognize the problem for themselves get a voice. We can help, and every little bit helps, but it's not ours to fix. This is FAR FAR more complex and rooted than a kid who hurts his knee on a skateboard.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
moxxey
Mar 22, 05:25 PM
And if you are looking for specs from unannounced products from Apple, you are going to quickly get used to being disappointed.
Mate I've been following MacRumors for many years. I don't need a description of the website.
You miss the point entirely. The site is all about speculation, fact or fiction, about forthcoming products. However, there's nothing in this "news" piece that's worth speculating. Nothing we can't figure ourselves.
It's still news whether it's classed as a rumor or not. However, there's no substance of worth in this news. That was the point.
Mate I've been following MacRumors for many years. I don't need a description of the website.
You miss the point entirely. The site is all about speculation, fact or fiction, about forthcoming products. However, there's nothing in this "news" piece that's worth speculating. Nothing we can't figure ourselves.
It's still news whether it's classed as a rumor or not. However, there's no substance of worth in this news. That was the point.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 08:01 PM
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
longsilver
Sep 2, 04:43 PM
I'm sure there's actually a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it would be fun to indulge in groundless speculation and suggest that declining to bother to go to Paris to give this keynote is a riposte to the French and their recent legislative fiddling with DRM and iTMS.
callme
Mar 29, 01:15 PM
They had 2.9% of the worldwide mobile phone market for 2010.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
Pravius
Apr 22, 09:45 AM
Key things said in your statement. First, believe it or not, people do spend a lot of time out, people have lives. I'm not saying you don't necessarily but, not everyone sits at home. When the time comes when its obvious physical media is actually dead, internet connectivity sure will be more reliable at that point. Its hard to say what data charges and such will be like at that point. Also, not everyone has or is able to get unlimited data so quit acting basing your arguments on that people do. Also, I'm assuming you have AT&T. In case you didn't know AT&T is already sending out messages to people with abnormally high data usage...even to people on unlimited plans saying stop it or we will change your plan to one our current higher end plans....i.e. 4GB. So until, cellular data is stable, reliable and the carriers do NOT want to gouge the customer on data....I want my local storage. One more point, physical media is one thing and local storage in terms of what we're discussing is not exactly the same thing. You're talking about CDs, blu rays and such. I'm talking about digital storage of .mp3/.aac/.mp4 and such. Not exactly the same.
Dump AT&T and get something that offers unlimited data without threats. If they change your plan I believe that is a breech in contract and you are free to look for another carrier.
Capitalism rules in our society, money in this case speaks louder than words to AT&T. Finally we have another option, Verizon.
Dump AT&T and get something that offers unlimited data without threats. If they change your plan I believe that is a breech in contract and you are free to look for another carrier.
Capitalism rules in our society, money in this case speaks louder than words to AT&T. Finally we have another option, Verizon.
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:18 PM
No next gen DVD in the 23" yet, I guess.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
ComputersaysNo
Apr 4, 12:01 PM
The way i see it, is that the headshot wasn't point blank but rather unlucky as the robber got to his car before puffing his last breath. Maybe the robber moved his head in the trajectory, maybe the bullet bounced on something. Who knows what happend, but it doesn't sound like an aimed headshot to me.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 24, 01:23 AM
100 mil might be a lot, but I think apple got its moneys worth, the got Creative of their back, they got a new accessory vendor, and they get to hold the pattent against other companies. I personally hope that more creative stuff becomes available for the mac, everyone seems to hate them but they make very good speakers, and their sound cards are very popular in the PC world amongst the gamers and even a few pro audio people. With so many products apple shouldnt leave a opportunity overlooked. :D
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
milo
Sep 5, 05:42 PM
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
There's no point in having a hard drive, why would you even want it if you can stream in real time from your computer? And why make it a "mini" size box when it can just be something tiny enough to hold AV outputs?
There's no point in having a hard drive, why would you even want it if you can stream in real time from your computer? And why make it a "mini" size box when it can just be something tiny enough to hold AV outputs?
ucfgrad93
Apr 24, 11:51 PM
Why do I feel like you are one of the people who purposely try to slow people down because you need to be on some higher moral ground and make sure the entire world does the speed you believe is safe?
Sorry, but I'm not. I try and avoid idiots on the highway. But why do I get the feeling that you are going to tell me that driving 90+ is perfectly safe cause you are such a wonderful driver.:rolleyes:
Sorry, but I'm not. I try and avoid idiots on the highway. But why do I get the feeling that you are going to tell me that driving 90+ is perfectly safe cause you are such a wonderful driver.:rolleyes:
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
shecky
Sep 14, 09:32 AM
Photokina is a photo convention. Not a computer convention.
yes, and photo software runs on computers. "This is the new Aperture. and it will run beautifully on the new C2D Macbook Pro I just announced. Boom. does this... Boom, does that...etc..."
EDIT: iMeowbot beat me to it, but what he/she said
yes, and photo software runs on computers. "This is the new Aperture. and it will run beautifully on the new C2D Macbook Pro I just announced. Boom. does this... Boom, does that...etc..."
EDIT: iMeowbot beat me to it, but what he/she said
techficiency
Mar 29, 03:09 PM
hilarious! balmer's standing around somewhere squirting himself into a false sense of security. microsoft is a dinosaur and about as hip and cool as an 8track.
Evangelion
Aug 23, 11:45 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System.
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
SeniorGato1
Apr 19, 08:23 AM
I think Apple should sue any cell phone manufacturer that uses a screen and buttons.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий