Pravius
Apr 22, 08:45 AM
knowing how apple is.....probably itunes purchases only.
Highly doubt it. I really hope not to be honest. They need to be competitive with Amazon if they do iTunes purchases only I believe they will lose a ton of Market share to Amazon. I think (hope) that Apple is smarter than that.
Highly doubt it. I really hope not to be honest. They need to be competitive with Amazon if they do iTunes purchases only I believe they will lose a ton of Market share to Amazon. I think (hope) that Apple is smarter than that.
holycat
Sep 10, 09:45 AM
Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
mazola
Sep 5, 03:15 PM
Steve's debuting a new series of "I'm a Mac" TV ads
:P
:P
Voltes V
Sep 12, 02:32 AM
i didn't know they glueintel chips to the motherboard. super glue? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
E.Lizardo
Apr 22, 06:59 AM
Other songs from their hard drives. That would be truly awesome! I do hope that that makes it into the final product.
Yes it would be quite stunning.Without that the service would be useless to me.I only have a handful of songs from iTunes.When I buy it is in this order:
Used CD
Discounted new CD
Amazon Download
iTunes download
Price rules!
Yes it would be quite stunning.Without that the service would be useless to me.I only have a handful of songs from iTunes.When I buy it is in this order:
Used CD
Discounted new CD
Amazon Download
iTunes download
Price rules!
wnurse
Aug 24, 08:48 AM
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
zacman
Mar 30, 11:30 AM
By that argument, aren't windows and office generic terms???
Office and Windows are/were generic words OUTSIDE of the computer industry (like Apple). But app(lication) store is a generic word INSIDE of the computer industry and that the big legal difference here.
Office and Windows are/were generic words OUTSIDE of the computer industry (like Apple). But app(lication) store is a generic word INSIDE of the computer industry and that the big legal difference here.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 10, 12:38 PM
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
bokdol
Sep 19, 03:07 PM
i wonder how will unbox is doing in comparason. anyone know how will it did first week?
Benjamins
Mar 29, 12:49 PM
Ask Nokia customers how important profit is.
lol better yet, ask Lehman Brothers' customers :rolleyes:
lol better yet, ask Lehman Brothers' customers :rolleyes:
GregA
Sep 15, 10:44 PM
'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? It seems that Apple has a choice.
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
gugy
Sep 26, 11:00 AM
wow, That's really bad. Cingular is sucks like pretty much every carrier in the US.
I hope at least they have the iphone to the major carriers. Just cingular is a joke. Verizon, T mobile and Sprint need to be included if they want the iphone to be a success.
I hope at least they have the iphone to the major carriers. Just cingular is a joke. Verizon, T mobile and Sprint need to be included if they want the iphone to be a success.
reflex
Aug 28, 03:31 PM
These are products that are now competing directly with the products or the PC industry. I have been using macs since I was about 4, but now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design, which are huge for most of Apple's current market. The ability to run Windows though has helped recently to increase Apple's sales, but it means that apples are now directly competing with Dell, HP and the like.
There are two kinds of people who would consider a mac:
1. those who want to run OSX: they have no choice, just like before
2. those who want to run Windows: they had no reason to buy a mac before, but they can consider it now
So with the move to Intel, Apple has in fact increased its potential market. If they play it well, I'm guessing they'll sell a lot more computers in the near future than they did in the past.
Just my uneducated guess.
There are two kinds of people who would consider a mac:
1. those who want to run OSX: they have no choice, just like before
2. those who want to run Windows: they had no reason to buy a mac before, but they can consider it now
So with the move to Intel, Apple has in fact increased its potential market. If they play it well, I'm guessing they'll sell a lot more computers in the near future than they did in the past.
Just my uneducated guess.
paradox00
Apr 14, 01:27 PM
It's pretty funny that people think that TB is designed to replace USB and therefore competing against it. Saying that is like suggesting that PCIe and DP are competing against USB, because that's what TB is. If your computer doesn't have USB 3.0 and you want it, what do you plug the USB 3.0 controller card into? PCIe of course... how is USB 3.0 competing with the thing it plugs into???
Intel announcing that their future chipsets will support TB and USB 3.0 is great news. It makes a monitor (connected to a computer through a single cable) with a USB 3.0 dock possible and it means all Intel based PCs will ship with TB standard.
TB isn't there to replace USB mice. It's there to provide high speed access to raid arrays, enable universal docking stations with a full array of ports (think USB, eSata, HDMI, audio, etc) connected to a computer through a single cable, and allow laptops to better utilize external graphics cards. The possibilities of extending the PCIe bus outside of the computer are limitless, I can't wait to see what people dream up (especially as speeds ramp up).
USB and TB are largely complimentary. One exception is external hard drives of course and TB is far superior in that aspect (theres a reason raid controllers are plugged into PCIe). Why people are opposed to this is beyond me.
Intel announcing that their future chipsets will support TB and USB 3.0 is great news. It makes a monitor (connected to a computer through a single cable) with a USB 3.0 dock possible and it means all Intel based PCs will ship with TB standard.
TB isn't there to replace USB mice. It's there to provide high speed access to raid arrays, enable universal docking stations with a full array of ports (think USB, eSata, HDMI, audio, etc) connected to a computer through a single cable, and allow laptops to better utilize external graphics cards. The possibilities of extending the PCIe bus outside of the computer are limitless, I can't wait to see what people dream up (especially as speeds ramp up).
USB and TB are largely complimentary. One exception is external hard drives of course and TB is far superior in that aspect (theres a reason raid controllers are plugged into PCIe). Why people are opposed to this is beyond me.
JMP
Apr 30, 06:55 PM
Can't wait to see what they come out with. Will the displays ramp up resolution and diminish in size? Will there be a scaled down iMac? (doubtful) Will some other advances accompany Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt?
I saw a two-year-old behave like that once... before getting his face smacked.
Very intelligent response.
Give it a shot pal.
I saw a two-year-old behave like that once... before getting his face smacked.
Very intelligent response.
Give it a shot pal.
adversus
Apr 20, 01:26 PM
I want to thank you all for providing me such wonderful entertainment on my lunch break!
bchreng
May 1, 01:23 AM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Some people - like me - may not own a mac desktop yet and would like to purchase one soon and intend on using it for quite a while. So while there may be no devices at the moment, there could very well be such a device released next year or the year after. When it is released we'll be glad that our iMacs have the port. It's not exactly like a pc where we can open up the case and add in the port later on.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Some people - like me - may not own a mac desktop yet and would like to purchase one soon and intend on using it for quite a while. So while there may be no devices at the moment, there could very well be such a device released next year or the year after. When it is released we'll be glad that our iMacs have the port. It's not exactly like a pc where we can open up the case and add in the port later on.
Slix
Apr 22, 11:48 AM
Awesome. I want a current MBA, but they're a tad too much right now. This will lower those prices.
Tymmz
Sep 1, 11:45 AM
hopefully it's going to look like this:
56364
56364
Tux Kapono
May 3, 10:20 AM
It's still cheaper to buy the Trackpad separately by buying the iMac anywhere else besides the Apple Store, since the Apple Store doesn't discount while charging state taxes.
jholzner
Aug 28, 12:18 PM
Yeah for the portables, but Conroe for the desktop.
Conroe cannot be dropped in to Yonah MB only merom.
Conroe cannot be dropped in to Yonah MB only merom.
richard4339
Sep 12, 02:11 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
From what I saw in the presentation stuff, 5G iPods get everything software related; movies, gapless playback, and games.
From what I saw in the presentation stuff, 5G iPods get everything software related; movies, gapless playback, and games.
cmaier
Nov 13, 03:59 PM
I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:19 PM
However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....