WisdomWolf
Apr 11, 05:17 PM
I, for one, think this is fantastic news. I've been waiting for something like this for a while. I would really love to see it included in XBMC.
For those that keep saying Home Sharing already does this, no it doesn't. I have a desktop in my office that holds all my movies, tv shows, and music. I have an Aspire Revo in my living room running XBMC and hook my macbook up in my bedroom also running XBMC. There are many cases where I'd like to play synchronized audio throughout the house.
Sure I could go and buy an Airport Express from my bedroom and my living room to accomplish this, but that seems silly. It's not that I don't want to pay apple for this feature, but a $100 hardware device to stream audio in a room that already has a computer that should be more than capable of handling the job doesn't make sense. I can stream from my desktop to each computer via Home Sharing and indeed I do just that, but that only gets me audio on one device at a time.
Now, in the near future, I will hopefully be able to stream whole house audio in my office, living room, and bedroom without having to take up another electrical port and another audio input on my receiver. Seems far more efficient, doesn't it?
For those that keep saying Home Sharing already does this, no it doesn't. I have a desktop in my office that holds all my movies, tv shows, and music. I have an Aspire Revo in my living room running XBMC and hook my macbook up in my bedroom also running XBMC. There are many cases where I'd like to play synchronized audio throughout the house.
Sure I could go and buy an Airport Express from my bedroom and my living room to accomplish this, but that seems silly. It's not that I don't want to pay apple for this feature, but a $100 hardware device to stream audio in a room that already has a computer that should be more than capable of handling the job doesn't make sense. I can stream from my desktop to each computer via Home Sharing and indeed I do just that, but that only gets me audio on one device at a time.
Now, in the near future, I will hopefully be able to stream whole house audio in my office, living room, and bedroom without having to take up another electrical port and another audio input on my receiver. Seems far more efficient, doesn't it?
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:59 PM
um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.
Hmmm, link must've been wrong. But Sprint has free incoming plans. They are:
$49.99/month 300 outgoing add'l min $.45 unlimited night & weekend
$59.99/month 500 outgoing " " " " " " "
$79.99/month 800 outgoing " " " " " " "
$99.99/month 1000 outgoing " " " " " " "
Hmmm, link must've been wrong. But Sprint has free incoming plans. They are:
$49.99/month 300 outgoing add'l min $.45 unlimited night & weekend
$59.99/month 500 outgoing " " " " " " "
$79.99/month 800 outgoing " " " " " " "
$99.99/month 1000 outgoing " " " " " " "
MattSepeta
Apr 18, 04:00 PM
The very fact that employers think that employees "should" work even one minute more than what they are paid to is mind-boggling. Why should they "expect" that the employee will give his time willingly for no extra?
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
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.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
ciTiger
Apr 14, 12:03 PM
I hope the new MBPs get USB3.0!
cmaier
Nov 13, 08:48 PM
Do you believe that Google Android apps are a free for all and that apps are never rejected? Do you believe that Google is any different than any other company when comes to protecting their IP? Google maps API for example, cannot be used in third party applications that offer turn by turn navigation.
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
cmcconkey
Sep 26, 12:45 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way. I could write the same exact story, but replace Cingular with Verizon (and vice versa), but I don't believe this sort of FUD is on topic..
Agreed i am happy for Apple to pair up with a company that will get their product out to a large number of people. I have been a die hard user of Apple products since 1993 ( I am only 28) and I will be a user for as long as Apple is out there.
I also know that everyone has the horror stories about cell providers, it is going to happen because there are bad customer service reps at all businesses, or CSRs that are having a bad day.
I just hope that the launch of the iPhone when/if it comes will be a great success for Apple.
Christopher
Agreed i am happy for Apple to pair up with a company that will get their product out to a large number of people. I have been a die hard user of Apple products since 1993 ( I am only 28) and I will be a user for as long as Apple is out there.
I also know that everyone has the horror stories about cell providers, it is going to happen because there are bad customer service reps at all businesses, or CSRs that are having a bad day.
I just hope that the launch of the iPhone when/if it comes will be a great success for Apple.
Christopher
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 23, 05:13 PM
Too bad Apple had to pay when they didn't really infringe.
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
CEAbiscuit
Sep 27, 09:32 AM
There's a nifty mock-up of an iPhone at
http://skangerland.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-want-to-be-able-to-go-rob-one-of.html
Geez, I hope it doesn't look like that. Rotary looks kool, but imagine trying to text or dial without looking.
http://skangerland.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-want-to-be-able-to-go-rob-one-of.html
Geez, I hope it doesn't look like that. Rotary looks kool, but imagine trying to text or dial without looking.
israelagm
Mar 30, 12:27 PM
Just for those that insist Microsoft only ever uses the term 'program' . XP dates back to 2001.
http://i.imgur.com/Wdw3y.jpg
Am I missing something from this? You're using a screenshot of Windows showing file types and the only thing showing the use of the term "Application" is on iTunes related files?
How does that prove your point? I really don't know if I missed what you were actually trying to convey? It's kinda like when someone is horribly wrong and because of that you start to question yourself if you were even right in the first place.
http://i.imgur.com/Wdw3y.jpg
Am I missing something from this? You're using a screenshot of Windows showing file types and the only thing showing the use of the term "Application" is on iTunes related files?
How does that prove your point? I really don't know if I missed what you were actually trying to convey? It's kinda like when someone is horribly wrong and because of that you start to question yourself if you were even right in the first place.
LarryC
Mar 22, 05:31 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
Amen. It really is way over due :D I don't think I could have waited much longer.
Amen. It really is way over due :D I don't think I could have waited much longer.
hogo
Nov 14, 09:50 AM
just change the ******** logos and icons and be done with it. If u let RA use them, every tom dick and harry could use official graphics and make it look like its apple official. Hate to see RA go, but this isn't that big of a deal.
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 02:43 PM
For those wanting retina displays:
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 06:08 PM
Quote:
"Originally Posted by X5-452
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?"
Ha, it makes me laugh still, 'cause it annoys other people..! :p
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
"Originally Posted by X5-452
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?"
Ha, it makes me laugh still, 'cause it annoys other people..! :p
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
ssdeg7
May 3, 08:41 PM
I would choose a Trackpad over a Mouse
stagi
Sep 19, 11:47 PM
Is everyone forgetting about the "special" dock kit Apple sells with "yellow" and S-video as well as audio out jacks on it, and a nice little remote AND another charger and sync cable? With the old 320x240 shows, it was barely watchable, lots of artifacts and about like fair quality VCR tape. With the new 640 x 480, the output is VERY watchable, not quite as good as DVD but better than my DirecTV digital signal. And, this little bundle of usefulness costs $99 and is available NOW. I have used one since about Christmas of last year, and it works pretty well. You DON'T have to wait for the iTV or confine your viewing to the computer screen or an ipod.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=E868E117&nplm=MA242LL%2FA
Or I have been using my regular dock with a seperate monster cable I bought.
With the new Res. I think it looks awesome. The only bummer is the battery life on my 30GB video ipod.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=E868E117&nplm=MA242LL%2FA
Or I have been using my regular dock with a seperate monster cable I bought.
With the new Res. I think it looks awesome. The only bummer is the battery life on my 30GB video ipod.
runninmac
Sep 13, 09:13 PM
Well, Steve did say he would be seeing us soon :p
cere
Apr 14, 02:02 PM
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
roland.g
Mar 29, 11:18 AM
I
Do
Comedy
That's pretty funny stuff. Are they writing for TBS?
Do
Comedy
That's pretty funny stuff. Are they writing for TBS?
eNcrypTioN
Feb 24, 10:06 AM
People still use McAfee lol... :eek: Apple is smart, I doubt anything bad will come of this.
Umbongo
Mar 23, 01:01 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
August 2006
January 2008 - 17 months later
March 2009 - 14 months later
July 2010 - 16 months later
While spring is possible the processors are to be launched in Q4. It is more likely to be under 18 months, but there is nothing out of the ordinary. Only the 2010 models seemed to be on Apple's time line rather than Intels.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
They have actually been the first to be updated for most of the time because Intel launched new technology on these platforms first. First to get 65nm Core 2 processor technology, first to get 45nm Penryn Core 2, first to get Nehalem (Core i5/i7). If Apple had updated on time in 2010 they'd have been first then to get Westmere (Apple released 4 months after the processor launch). Intel have changed their release schedule from enthusiast and Enterprise coming first with the move to Sandy Bridge, mostly because the benefits are more to the mobile market due to power savings.
August 2006
January 2008 - 17 months later
March 2009 - 14 months later
July 2010 - 16 months later
While spring is possible the processors are to be launched in Q4. It is more likely to be under 18 months, but there is nothing out of the ordinary. Only the 2010 models seemed to be on Apple's time line rather than Intels.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
They have actually been the first to be updated for most of the time because Intel launched new technology on these platforms first. First to get 65nm Core 2 processor technology, first to get 45nm Penryn Core 2, first to get Nehalem (Core i5/i7). If Apple had updated on time in 2010 they'd have been first then to get Westmere (Apple released 4 months after the processor launch). Intel have changed their release schedule from enthusiast and Enterprise coming first with the move to Sandy Bridge, mostly because the benefits are more to the mobile market due to power savings.
mdntcallr
Oct 27, 01:17 PM
well, i believe in saving the environment. but they ought to stick to the space plan for the convention.
Dont go PETA route. be nice, but get the message across
Dont go PETA route. be nice, but get the message across
adk
Apr 24, 11:56 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?
Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing?
Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment