mymacluvsme
Aug 24, 03:56 AM
Is this a one-time payment to include all future uses?
greenstork
Jul 17, 03:54 PM
I'd bet it all that the iMac gets an Allendale with maybe a Conroe top-end option.
That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.
Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.
That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.
Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:42 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
.jpg "dollar bill template for kids.")
aaronb
Aug 31, 03:50 PM
What I'm confused about is how the movie downloads will be decent quality and not take FOREVER to download. If the quality is great, the download time is going to be ridiculous. If the quality is bad, no one would even consider buying it.
I would rather buy a 15 dollar DVD, rip it into my iPod and still have a DVD that looks good on my TV. That's just IMO.
I would rather buy a 15 dollar DVD, rip it into my iPod and still have a DVD that looks good on my TV. That's just IMO.
KPATVPOD
Apr 20, 09:50 AM
Is the Program to read it Mac only or is there a PC version??
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
Tones2
Mar 29, 12:33 PM
I do find it humorous that these analysts think they can see 2015 with any semblance of accuracy.
I find it also humorous the number of people in this forum who are positive that this WON'T happen, and don't think THAT is a prediction. ;)
Tony
I find it also humorous the number of people in this forum who are positive that this WON'T happen, and don't think THAT is a prediction. ;)
Tony
FinderUser213
Mar 29, 03:00 PM
Woohooo!
Awesome to see Android on the top with Windows. It's about time opensource started taking off. Enough of this Apple closed source junk.
Awesome to see Android on the top with Windows. It's about time opensource started taking off. Enough of this Apple closed source junk.
spicyapple
Oct 12, 06:14 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 01:06 PM
If Steve says it's good, then all will be forgiven.
mdntcallr
Aug 23, 10:47 PM
yeah, but it isn't a bad deal. hell creative could have pulled a lawsuit, much like the lawsuit which almost shut down blackberry.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.
hc8170
Oct 27, 10:33 AM
I have nothing against Greenpeace or the message that Greenpeace is trying to send about the environment. If Greenpeace's presence (or more specifically, Greenpeace volunteers' presence) at other public events is any representation, I am not surprised at their behavior.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=16291&pagtype=allchandate
Heck, every trade show I ever go to has girls with their tits half hanging out wondering the halls handing out leaflets nowhere near their particular stand.
Sad to see so many people now happy to have people's free speech stamped all over.
In response to the previous post above, perhaps Greenpeace should think about limiting its volunteers at public events to "really hot" girls dressed "appropriately", I am sure its message would be better received.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=16291&pagtype=allchandate
Heck, every trade show I ever go to has girls with their tits half hanging out wondering the halls handing out leaflets nowhere near their particular stand.
Sad to see so many people now happy to have people's free speech stamped all over.
In response to the previous post above, perhaps Greenpeace should think about limiting its volunteers at public events to "really hot" girls dressed "appropriately", I am sure its message would be better received.
MrNomNoms
Apr 30, 08:58 PM
Anger management is a good thing.
Not that but realising his posts are massively off topic. This article is about the iMac and nothing to do with the operating system itself.
Not that but realising his posts are massively off topic. This article is about the iMac and nothing to do with the operating system itself.
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
evilgEEk
Sep 5, 02:01 PM
They will have to have something that allows you to access your audio and video files with a remote. Maybe an aiport express with a remote control and user interface similar, but better than frontrow.
Exactly. If this device has a Front Row-like interface with a remote control, etc.. then I'm in, because that's what I've been waiting on for years.
Now, if it's simply an updated Airport Express that now allows you to stream movies but you still have to use your computer do send the files through (AirTunes) then I'll pass. I really don't think they would do it this way though, or at least I hope not.
I'm ready to give Apple a lot of my money right now (updated mini, iPhone, new video "device"), but now they just need to release the products. ;)
Exactly. If this device has a Front Row-like interface with a remote control, etc.. then I'm in, because that's what I've been waiting on for years.
Now, if it's simply an updated Airport Express that now allows you to stream movies but you still have to use your computer do send the files through (AirTunes) then I'll pass. I really don't think they would do it this way though, or at least I hope not.
I'm ready to give Apple a lot of my money right now (updated mini, iPhone, new video "device"), but now they just need to release the products. ;)
xxjudgmentxx
Mar 22, 01:48 PM
Better idea: add an ExpressCard slot so I can put eSATA or USB3 on my iMac. Or you know...put USB3 & eSATA on my iMac for me *hint hint Apple*
kharvel
Apr 29, 03:55 AM
There are two groups of Apple consumers:
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 12:01 PM
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
AlBDamned
Aug 23, 04:47 PM
Really, though $100 million isn't all that significant to a company with reserves like Apple has, vs. having a possible patent infringement hanging over them that could, given a ruling against them, cost much more.
I guess so. It's good that there's been a settlement though. For both companies I think this is a positive outcome.
I guess so. It's good that there's been a settlement though. For both companies I think this is a positive outcome.
irmongoose
Sep 13, 09:06 PM
A '?' now?
irmongoose
irmongoose
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.
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 10:06 AM
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 01:14 PM
Granted, this is a good thing.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
It's not really the same. They are poor and struggling to improve their lives, but their entire people is not being wiped out by a disease that they don't have the resources to understand, much less combat.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
It's not really the same. They are poor and struggling to improve their lives, but their entire people is not being wiped out by a disease that they don't have the resources to understand, much less combat.
Vaco Deus
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Let the apps stay.
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
Analog Kid
Sep 13, 10:17 PM
Chrome backed radio, eh? I suppose they could use the tin can and your head to form a slot antenna...
No mention of a camera-- I find it strange that Apple wouldn't include one and strange that a description of the phone wouldn't call it out as one of the early bullet items.
But then, I'm an iPhone skeptic so...
I do know that Apple has spread false information to ferret out leaks in the past-- I hope the source doesn't get caught in any kind of trap like that...
No mention of a camera-- I find it strange that Apple wouldn't include one and strange that a description of the phone wouldn't call it out as one of the early bullet items.
But then, I'm an iPhone skeptic so...
I do know that Apple has spread false information to ferret out leaks in the past-- I hope the source doesn't get caught in any kind of trap like that...