longsilver
Sep 2, 04:43 PM
I'm sure there's actually a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it would be fun to indulge in groundless speculation and suggest that declining to bother to go to Paris to give this keynote is a riposte to the French and their recent legislative fiddling with DRM and iTMS.
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:
BuddyTronic
Nov 17, 01:11 AM
Well, I�ve dismissed most of the other complaints. But this is Rogue Amoeba. Phil Schiller needs to get involved with this immediately � completely unacceptable. They are one of the premier Mac shareware developers.
Indeed, I hope Apple listens and apologizes etc. to get Rogue Amoeba back.
Come on Apple!
Indeed, I hope Apple listens and apologizes etc. to get Rogue Amoeba back.
Come on Apple!
eye
Mar 23, 04:59 PM
Would you like more? Maybe people should stop DUI.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
As long as you don't mention hyenas, mention anything you like.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
As long as you don't mention hyenas, mention anything you like.
berkleeboy210
Sep 1, 10:12 AM
saw a post on ilounge earlier.... that said this guy went to his local apple store, and they said to wait until next week (the 5th) because imacs and mac minis would have core 2 duos.
if this is true, then this event on 9/12 will most definetely be strictly ipod/itunes related. :)
if this is true, then this event on 9/12 will most definetely be strictly ipod/itunes related. :)
lowonthe456
Mar 22, 02:24 PM
I wanted to get a 15" MBP, but more and more they look like bags of hurt :(
Maybe imac is the way to go
Maybe imac is the way to go
cube
May 3, 11:04 AM
Would be great to have dual out on 11" MBA too. This way I could have dual displays at my remote office.
Blame Thunderbolt.
Blame Thunderbolt.
rychencop
Jan 1, 07:57 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
DHagan4755
Sep 14, 03:29 PM
You guys are forgetting that last year, at a photography-related event, Apple bumped the PowerBooks. That was the event where they introduced Aperture. If it happened before, it could happen again!
iLunar
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
Why do they always use the smaller sized iPods for the special editions?
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
Papajohn56
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Chuck Schumer is one of the worst senators we have.
afd
Apr 11, 08:15 AM
I can't imagine how Apple could have thought they could keep that private key secret forever.
been secret since '04
been secret since '04
kjs862
Apr 22, 01:53 AM
Very grateful that I am grandfathered into ATT's unlimited data plan!
mac jones
Apr 4, 12:18 PM
The report says 40 shots were fired so the perps were armed and this is the whole point. The guard has a set (and is a good shot it seems).
If you go to do a crime armed, you should die.
Kudos guard.
If you go to do a crime armed, you should die.
Kudos guard.
Chimera
Sep 14, 11:15 AM
Prior to the date being given out for the press event I was fully expecting a new MBP at Photokina.
However now given that it is on a Sunday I see no hope of an update. They wouldn't take down the store on a Sunday whereas the Apeture update will either be a free download or a preview of a 2.0 App therefore needing no major store changes.
PS Is there any precedence of hardware updates on a Sunday?
However now given that it is on a Sunday I see no hope of an update. They wouldn't take down the store on a Sunday whereas the Apeture update will either be a free download or a preview of a 2.0 App therefore needing no major store changes.
PS Is there any precedence of hardware updates on a Sunday?
amols
Sep 12, 02:28 PM
Album art browsing is beautiful. Now that's one more reason to get art cover for all the songs in my library.
randyharris
Sep 9, 01:49 AM
20% is a decent improvement in speed. However, I won't be replacing my 20" Intel iMac any time soon. There will be a time when I can't resist the upgrade, and a 24" is very appealing. But it's not a necessity - it's a desire.
The way things progress, I might find myself looking at a 3ghz iMac Core 4 Duo's in a couple years - and when that come out I'll be looking more closely.
Randy at http://www.MacSeven.com
The way things progress, I might find myself looking at a 3ghz iMac Core 4 Duo's in a couple years - and when that come out I'll be looking more closely.
Randy at http://www.MacSeven.com
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:14 PM
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
freiheit
Sep 9, 02:22 AM
But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities,
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
andrew050703
Sep 21, 10:05 AM
sorry to interrupt on the network discussion, but has anyone got anything new to share/discuss on the iPhone (unless I read the thread wrong ;))?
Can it really offer all that functionality (from the patent report) in a candybar style phone, or will they have to release two - a funtional one, for ipodding/texting/phoning; and a pda for office work on the move (& everything else?
Can it really offer all that functionality (from the patent report) in a candybar style phone, or will they have to release two - a funtional one, for ipodding/texting/phoning; and a pda for office work on the move (& everything else?
ciTiger
Apr 20, 10:01 AM
WOW this is a major privacy breach.
shawnce
Aug 23, 08:42 PM
Well, it wasn't just this lawsuit. Five lawsuits were settled @ $20M a suit + no distractions of dragging this out... Plus they now are paid up FOREVER to use this license + they could recoup some money if Licenses are granted to others... doesn't sound as drastic as $100M is suddenly down the toilet. There's some value there for Apple. Apple appears even to be booking the license as an asset on their balance (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/560002960831?r=945004960831#945004960831) sheet and hence the cost of it will be amortized overtime (asset depreciation).
Chris Bangle
Oct 12, 01:35 PM
I just saw those mock ups on the appleinsder forum and i say that it looks much better than i imagined it to..... Im quite impressed. They will sell millions of them, good for Apple, but better for africa. Red or blue nano, tough decision.......
No comments:
Post a Comment