Tom Sawyer
Apr 30, 04:13 PM
They will be amazing machines without a doubt, but I'll never go back to an iMac until a Matte option is available.
infidel69
Apr 19, 11:51 AM
Apple keeps burning bridges and eventually it's going to come back to bite them in the ass. Samsung is holding all the cards here. Apple needs Samsung but Samsung doesn't need Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if Sammy has some unexpected production issues with ipad parts here shortly.
cwt1nospam
Feb 23, 08:38 PM
Also, android has free anti-virus scanners available in there market. Apple may have some too. I think mcafee is just trying to sell product, but if I was them i would want to sell my product to EVERY person who had Android or iOS based phone, simply because that is a VERY large user base.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 31, 02:59 PM
Thats true but... but....
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
Valid point. We'll just have to wait for the day then. :) ;)
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
Valid point. We'll just have to wait for the day then. :) ;)
Porchland
Aug 31, 01:10 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
This may be on the rosy side, but I assume that $14.99 for new titles and $9.99 for catalog titles means higher resolution. Otherwise, a movie is 7x the cost of a TV episode with no added value, which just doesn't sound like something Apple would do.
The higher resolution would allow you to (somehow) play the episode directly to your TV and burn a copy on DVD. The biggest problem is size. It would take as long to download a 2-hour movie in HD (or even SD) as it would to watch it.
I hope Apple gets this movie thing right.
This may be on the rosy side, but I assume that $14.99 for new titles and $9.99 for catalog titles means higher resolution. Otherwise, a movie is 7x the cost of a TV episode with no added value, which just doesn't sound like something Apple would do.
The higher resolution would allow you to (somehow) play the episode directly to your TV and burn a copy on DVD. The biggest problem is size. It would take as long to download a 2-hour movie in HD (or even SD) as it would to watch it.
I hope Apple gets this movie thing right.
jt2110
Sep 5, 04:11 AM
Don't all wireless devices have to be approved by the FCC?
Might we get a preview of this device?
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned this.
Might we get a preview of this device?
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned this.
triceretops
May 3, 11:30 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?!
I do. Probably have room for 3.:D
I do. Probably have room for 3.:D
z4n3
Apr 20, 10:56 AM
I do not seem to have this file! :D
guess there are some users that are safe....
guess there are some users that are safe....
starflyer
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
It would be more interesting to see their PROFIT SHARE predictions.
adamfilip
Sep 11, 07:50 AM
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownExactly my thinking as well.
Thanks for the typo correction. but large type sizes are not necessary
Thanks for the typo correction. but large type sizes are not necessary
bredlo
Apr 22, 11:39 AM
Love the style and miniaturization being tested out in the Air line. I'd never seriously consider one though unless they made a 15" version. I've been buying mid-size Mac laptops forever, going back to the 14" Wallstreet.
With my need for real estate (graphics and video editing) and limited use of optical drives and lots of I/O ports on a daily basis, that thin form factor and big screen would be just perfect for me.
Think it over Apple - thinner is better, but so is bigger!
With my need for real estate (graphics and video editing) and limited use of optical drives and lots of I/O ports on a daily basis, that thin form factor and big screen would be just perfect for me.
Think it over Apple - thinner is better, but so is bigger!
MacMan86
Apr 13, 04:11 AM
Actually, he is right. The two use different protocols when streaming. The video portion of AirPlay is done differently and does not require the private key. It just employs setting up a "server" whenever its being utilized. I have it set up on XBMC, and it works just as it would on an AppleTV.
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
jouster
Aug 28, 02:18 PM
These are products that are now competing directly with the products or the PC industry.....
Apple has always competed directly with PCs and related products.
.....now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design
When were those not the only distinctions Apple had? I mean, who really bought Macs because they had processors based on a different ISA?
Apple has always competed directly with PCs and related products.
.....now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design
When were those not the only distinctions Apple had? I mean, who really bought Macs because they had processors based on a different ISA?
malnar
Apr 20, 01:53 PM
Oh, my God! Somebody will know that I took the train! (If, of course, they are security researchers or police officers or vengeful wives who hire a tech detective). So what? Apple does what a responsible corporation must: it won't give out your location without your permission, each and every time.
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
mdntcallr
Sep 10, 09:37 AM
I'd like to see merom in MBP
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
kurosov
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
This argument has nothing to do with the term "app" but with the legally given trademark "app store".
The term app store was never used before the release and subsequent trademark approval of apples app store so anybody arguing that the term is generic are just being silly. The whole concept of a trademark is to protect a companies name, slogan etc from becoming a generic term and to prevent that they have to defend against it.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 25, 03:37 PM
No keyboard, no trackpad. iPad built-in as horiz touch-surface for configurable keyboard & trackpad area, and instant-access to data on the mac thru iOS + apps. BAM! Crazytime.
Man o man would the typists be pissed.
...just like they were when the iPhone came out.
Man o man would the typists be pissed.
...just like they were when the iPhone came out.
tigress666
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
I haven't read the article but it sounds like the guard was shot at.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
HarryKeogh
Apr 25, 02:42 PM
Could just be me, but I think the design is perfect. Apple is still way ahead of the competition with the unibody design. How much better can it get?
When my mom was a cool, happening chick in the early '70s and added avocado green appliances to replace those big, white 50's-era appliances she looked around her new kitchen and thought to herself "Wow. Gorgeous! How much better can it get?"
And I'm sure in 15 years my kids will tell their friends "Ugh, my parents have that 2010-era stainless and granite kitchen. So hideous".
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm hungry.
When my mom was a cool, happening chick in the early '70s and added avocado green appliances to replace those big, white 50's-era appliances she looked around her new kitchen and thought to herself "Wow. Gorgeous! How much better can it get?"
And I'm sure in 15 years my kids will tell their friends "Ugh, my parents have that 2010-era stainless and granite kitchen. So hideous".
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm hungry.
sord
Sep 10, 08:31 PM
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
I don't know about a G7, but PowerBook G5s for sure!!!
I don't know about a G7, but PowerBook G5s for sure!!!
poppe
Sep 4, 03:36 PM
It doesn't seem Apple's style to make wireless n hardware when there is no standard yet, I would think they would make a Media Center Mac, possibly with a built in iPod dock, maybe adding DivX and XVid (or just sticking VLC on the damn thing).
It might not mean a using the Wireless N standard but using somethign completely different. Like the Airport Express is a Hub to recieve special videos that are coded specifically for it to make downloading a movie quickly, and to also be able to stream movies/tunes much faster and easier to your home telivision.
Perhaps you could hook up an Airport Express to a TV and then run OS X right through Airport controlling everything
It might not mean a using the Wireless N standard but using somethign completely different. Like the Airport Express is a Hub to recieve special videos that are coded specifically for it to make downloading a movie quickly, and to also be able to stream movies/tunes much faster and easier to your home telivision.
Perhaps you could hook up an Airport Express to a TV and then run OS X right through Airport controlling everything
LJB
Mar 23, 04:51 PM
US Senators (and Congressmen) write the laws of this country. If they want to make this type of information illegal, they are the ones who write the laws so they should do it that way. But as other people noted, there are some states which have laws making DUI checkpoint locations public information.
Bottom line, just because a Senator or two asks Apple to do something does not mean Apple should. They are doing it this way (the easy way) because it would be very difficult to pass as a law and it might not hold up in court.
Bottom line, just because a Senator or two asks Apple to do something does not mean Apple should. They are doing it this way (the easy way) because it would be very difficult to pass as a law and it might not hold up in court.
bstpierre
Nov 13, 02:01 PM
I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.
w00master
I agree with you. If they are using an image sent by Mac OS X for just such a purpose they are not doing anything wrong.
It makes me think that maybe there are some lowly app reviewers who are letting the power go to their heads.
w00master
I agree with you. If they are using an image sent by Mac OS X for just such a purpose they are not doing anything wrong.
It makes me think that maybe there are some lowly app reviewers who are letting the power go to their heads.
uv23
Sep 12, 09:20 PM
Apple's whole new "black is top of the line" trend is thoroughly idiotic. I literally removed my credit card from my wallet when I read on the event stream that Apple had released an 8gb nano, then replaced it when I read on about the 8gb model being black only. I hate black electronics. I want an aluminum 8gb iPod to match my PowerBook. Is that so much to ask?? Fine, if they want to only allow black for 8gb, but why limit us. Stupid stupid stupid.:mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment