Popeye206
Apr 22, 05:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
The problem is, without an Application like iTunes and a DRM, Amazon has no way to manage licensed materials. So if they want to do something similar to Apple, they really can't. Yes, what you upload is assumed to be yours, but music you buy from Amazon is not managed at the user level by Amazon. So unless they reconcile your purchase history, they don't know what's what, so it would be open season on the Amazon side and I think that's not what the Labels like.
In this case, the Apple "closed system" has the advantage of knowing what's what and it seems like Apple is doing it right by getting the record companies on board with the concept before launching.
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
The problem is, without an Application like iTunes and a DRM, Amazon has no way to manage licensed materials. So if they want to do something similar to Apple, they really can't. Yes, what you upload is assumed to be yours, but music you buy from Amazon is not managed at the user level by Amazon. So unless they reconcile your purchase history, they don't know what's what, so it would be open season on the Amazon side and I think that's not what the Labels like.
In this case, the Apple "closed system" has the advantage of knowing what's what and it seems like Apple is doing it right by getting the record companies on board with the concept before launching.
someguy
Oct 12, 09:48 PM
I have to pay an extra $10 and that goes where?
First of all, you don't have to do anything.
Second, have you been reading this thread at all?
First of all, you don't have to do anything.
Second, have you been reading this thread at all?
mazola
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
It could be no other thing.
mterlouw
Sep 4, 03:25 PM
I think it is the highly anticipated iToilet with universal iPod dock and count 'em four AppleTalk ports.
RollTide
Mar 22, 06:23 PM
Maybe all those "OS on SD and everything else on HD was aimed more at iMac????
Here's hopin.
Here's hopin.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 05:04 PM
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
dokein
Sep 27, 05:04 AM
I really hope Apple doesn't jump on the camera-phone bandwagon. Seems to go against their philosophy of having devices that do few things but to them far better. And it would make the phone useless to me. But that's just because my employers are sensitive about such devices, with the nuclear reactors and all.
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
cheunghy
Sep 5, 08:44 AM
Apple Store Hong Kong is still up...
yoda13
Sep 5, 01:49 PM
I hope for good quality movies too. What is realistically the limit on quality that they can implement and still have it be manageable with a normal average speed broadband connection? Just curious.
nick004
Oct 27, 11:04 AM
Apple is from California too though! And were not all hippies over here, for the record.
Sorry, I like to perpetuate stereotypes
Sorry, I like to perpetuate stereotypes
wizard
Sep 9, 11:38 AM
Sounds like a set of chips to me ;)
dave
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom, composed to CPU (Yonah), chipset (Intel Express 945) and WLAN ()Intel PRO/Wireless). The amount of RAM might be limited due to timing-issues and the like.
dave
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom, composed to CPU (Yonah), chipset (Intel Express 945) and WLAN ()Intel PRO/Wireless). The amount of RAM might be limited due to timing-issues and the like.
martygras9
Mar 23, 04:16 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
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!
jz1492
Nov 13, 05:42 PM
I don't see Apple as the client. After all, they didn't ask for the app. They didn't provide any kind of spec, or put out an RFP, or specify any guidelines as to what it should do. To me they are more of an unwanted kibbutzer looking over my shoulder. On more than one occasion I've had Apple reject updates that did things my customers really wanted, for dumb reasons (usually reasons that they could have asserted for the 20 updates I did prior to that point).
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
Willis
Oct 12, 05:18 PM
It looks like a more "true" red to me!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
miamialley
Mar 23, 05:38 PM
Nobody likes drunk driving, but Apple cannot pull this. Freedom of speech!
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.
macquariumguy
Apr 19, 01:06 PM
I too am exempt. We don't clock in, but do put down hours worked on our contracts (because that is what the customer wants). Functionally I am an hourly employee, because if I do not work a full 40 hours I don't get 40 hours worth of pay.
From that description, you don't sound like an exempt employee to me. I'm not a labor lawyer, but if I was in your shoes I think I'd be reading up on the subject. There are rules that employers are supposed to follow.
What I don't get is if I did 40 hours worth of work, but in 35 hours I still would only get paid for 35 hours. I thought being on salary would remove that.
Heh, if you can do it in 35 hours then it is not 40 hours worth of work, is it? :)
From that description, you don't sound like an exempt employee to me. I'm not a labor lawyer, but if I was in your shoes I think I'd be reading up on the subject. There are rules that employers are supposed to follow.
What I don't get is if I did 40 hours worth of work, but in 35 hours I still would only get paid for 35 hours. I thought being on salary would remove that.
Heh, if you can do it in 35 hours then it is not 40 hours worth of work, is it? :)
MacRumors
Mar 29, 11:07 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/29/idc-projects-windows-phone-to-top-iphone-in-market-share-by-2015/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:18 PM
unfortunately, also bingo.
Err... no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Err... no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Satori
Apr 22, 01:37 AM
I really hope this happens but I have a feeling that it will be hobbled in some way. If it runs from an iTunes master copy of songs then it might preclude people uploading music that has been ripped from CDs or bought somewhere else (like Amazon).
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.
callme
Mar 29, 01:03 PM
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't. Same with window snap.
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
It does have CUT and Paste.
Command-X = Cut
Command-P = Paste
Command-C = Copy
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
It does have CUT and Paste.
Command-X = Cut
Command-P = Paste
Command-C = Copy
Evangelion
Sep 9, 11:00 AM
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
Napa is the hardware-platform, composed of Yonah, Intel Mobile 945-chipset and Intel Pro Wireless. AKA third generation Centrino. And since the CPU used in that platform is 32bits, the platfom can be called a 32bit platfom. Note: this has nothing to do with the bitness of the logic-board. Napa64 (or rather: Santa Rosa) is Fourth generation Centrino that uses Merom and new chipset.
Napa is the hardware-platform, composed of Yonah, Intel Mobile 945-chipset and Intel Pro Wireless. AKA third generation Centrino. And since the CPU used in that platform is 32bits, the platfom can be called a 32bit platfom. Note: this has nothing to do with the bitness of the logic-board. Napa64 (or rather: Santa Rosa) is Fourth generation Centrino that uses Merom and new chipset.