Kingsly
Aug 6, 11:40 PM
More pix of the same... in case anyone cares!
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
Surreal
May 2, 06:00 PM
This will be interesting. The issue that I see concerns ancillary data. I really dislike how the iphone handles application data, but it is--at the very least--consistent. You delete the app, you delete the data.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
BornAgainMac
Jul 19, 06:32 PM
I bet at the Developer's conference that Adobe and Microsoft announce Universal Binaries for September.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 26, 04:34 PM
I see people here still digging up the old WORD and WINDOWS argument that gets debunked every damn time someone brings it up.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
"Apple App Store"
Done! Call it a day. Job well done.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
"Apple App Store"
Done! Call it a day. Job well done.
Storm9
Oct 13, 10:54 PM
Thanks! I'll try it on my work computer, its a quad.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 03:33 AM
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:09 PM
Final Cut X - 64 Bit, full re-write! YES!
FireStar
Oct 20, 03:12 PM
i found one that matches a case that i bought for my iphone a while back!
[tIMG]http://thmb.inkfrog.com/thumbn/cimo/itouch4_dualgel_blue_01.jpg=800[/IMG]
snatched it up for 6 bucks! what a deal. i think i might get black next..
Darn. I thought it wasn't generic for a second. But it still looks nice.
[tIMG]http://thmb.inkfrog.com/thumbn/cimo/itouch4_dualgel_blue_01.jpg=800[/IMG]
snatched it up for 6 bucks! what a deal. i think i might get black next..
Darn. I thought it wasn't generic for a second. But it still looks nice.
emotion
Aug 16, 07:43 AM
I wish whoever posted this would get it straight - Microsoft is coming out with zune to compete with iPod. They are the one with the new product that will inevitably suck.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
At least Apple seem to be avoiding standing still. That's a good thing as it's hard to stay at the top of the market forever. Especially when MS are concerned.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
At least Apple seem to be avoiding standing still. That's a good thing as it's hard to stay at the top of the market forever. Especially when MS are concerned.
netdog
Aug 25, 12:04 PM
Why would updated mac minis be such a high security product. Its nothing revolutionary so why would apple want so much security on the shipping of them? Im hoping for something BIG
Now you're talking. I want my iFon
Now you're talking. I want my iFon
valanchan
Apr 12, 10:12 PM
Just read something today to the effect that Peter Jackson is following James Cameron's lead and shooting 48fps on the "Hobbit"; gambling that enough digital theaters will upgrade to 48fps by the time the "film" arrives in a couple of years time. Guess that is the beginning of the end of the "film" look for at least action movies.
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
Reverend Wally
Jan 1, 08:34 PM
OK ....
This is what will happen at MWSF.
A new technology will be introduced. About 2 minutes after that a wavering shimmer will appear on stage and "POP" ... A capsule will appear, and out of it will climb an iAndroid which in reality will be an android built by future Apple, Inc. and will have Steve Job's brain installed in it. He will then announce that as a result of the previously announced new technonlogy the iTraveler, an Apple time travel machine was made possible and was built in the future enabling him to come back in his new android body to show us all just how truly advanced Apple has really become.
Then we will all gather to sing "We Are The World" to bring the MWSF to a dramatic and exciting climax.
:p
This is what will happen at MWSF.
A new technology will be introduced. About 2 minutes after that a wavering shimmer will appear on stage and "POP" ... A capsule will appear, and out of it will climb an iAndroid which in reality will be an android built by future Apple, Inc. and will have Steve Job's brain installed in it. He will then announce that as a result of the previously announced new technonlogy the iTraveler, an Apple time travel machine was made possible and was built in the future enabling him to come back in his new android body to show us all just how truly advanced Apple has really become.
Then we will all gather to sing "We Are The World" to bring the MWSF to a dramatic and exciting climax.
:p
sushi
Jul 15, 02:38 AM
After reading all this good discussion concerning Bluray vs. HD-DVD, it makes me wonder how much the consumer will put up with. It seems to me that the consumer is the one who looses.
Anyhow, just think about 10 years from now we will get a whole new format and whichever wins now, Bluray or HD-DVD, will be outdated! ;) :eek: :D
Anyhow, just think about 10 years from now we will get a whole new format and whichever wins now, Bluray or HD-DVD, will be outdated! ;) :eek: :D
blilly
Nov 28, 10:40 AM
It's far too early to make comparisons . . . . the competition is good and I think even Apple enjoys the challenge. I don't like this "us vs. them" attitude that seems to be so pervasive with the Zune . . even more, it seems, than with the OS wars . . . .
mambodancer
Jul 18, 10:18 PM
I think you are confusing the term HD in various context.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
That's what I figured. I knew it was too much to hope that I could play HD-DVD's in my iMac without buying a stand alone player. Oh, well. Thanks for the reply.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
That's what I figured. I knew it was too much to hope that I could play HD-DVD's in my iMac without buying a stand alone player. Oh, well. Thanks for the reply.
roadbloc
Apr 1, 10:13 AM
Guess why they are the only two removable apps?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
holbie
Apr 2, 10:04 PM
I will not feed the trolls� I will not feed the trolls� I will not feed the trolls�
firestarter
Apr 12, 10:04 PM
$299 are you out of your mind?
OK, I'm liking this.
OK, I'm liking this.
applefan289
Mar 24, 01:08 PM
Excellent, more compatibility is what's hurting the Mac the most. This would be a great next step to make the Mac a more flexible, multi-purpose machine.
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 29, 10:06 AM
... with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.Good observation. Would be nice to see the price point on the Mini come back down to starting at $499.
Why is everyone so hung up on Merom?
Perhaps they were daydreaming during economics class. :rolleyes:
READ MY LIPS: Merom will not appear in the MacBook or Mini during 2006.
Why is everyone so hung up on Merom?
Perhaps they were daydreaming during economics class. :rolleyes:
READ MY LIPS: Merom will not appear in the MacBook or Mini during 2006.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
VanNess
Jul 20, 02:27 AM
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
alust2013
Apr 10, 05:40 PM
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
Dont Hurt Me
Mar 19, 03:49 PM
Apples commercials have sucked, very rarely do they show what it can do. I have to laugh i was watching the o'reiley factor the other night and all of a sudden they show the Apple ipod commercial with brothers(if you know what i mean) dancing and listening to hip hop. then i asked myself how many conservative Americans are going even pay attention to that geto commercial let alone buy a pod because of that. talk about waste of air time. Like O'reileys viewers play and listens to Rap. Apple is lost when it comes to marketing and building computers for the masses.