Multimedia
Sep 13, 08:11 AM
Does anyone know how to get into the quick search on the 5G iPods? I updated mine with the 1.2 software but I only see the quick scrolling letter thing.Pretty sure Quick Search Is Only On New 5.5G iPods. :(
loungecorps
May 1, 01:23 AM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
post production just got cheaper because of this. thunderbolt is being adopted quickly by company's the manufacture video equpment
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
post production just got cheaper because of this. thunderbolt is being adopted quickly by company's the manufacture video equpment
Eidorian
May 3, 11:21 AM
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
QuarterSwede
Sep 10, 06:34 PM
My guess is that the Core 2 Duo MBs & MBPs will be a silent release who knows when.
The Showtime event will be for the iTunes Movie Store and an upgraded iPod with a slight design change (not the widescreen iPod). And possibly an Airport Express with video streaming, which would be sweet because I'd like to get another Airport Express anyway.
The Showtime event will be for the iTunes Movie Store and an upgraded iPod with a slight design change (not the widescreen iPod). And possibly an Airport Express with video streaming, which would be sweet because I'd like to get another Airport Express anyway.
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 06:39 PM
Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
bjdku
Sep 13, 09:29 PM
this is definitely a style over functionality....how da heck do you dial a number with clickwheel?
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
How do you figure this is an awesome design? This is a brainless design! Designing the nano in the first place might have been awesome. But making a nano a phone is hardly a leap of design genius!
And you mentioned chocolate and awesome design in the same sentence!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
How do you figure this is an awesome design? This is a brainless design! Designing the nano in the first place might have been awesome. But making a nano a phone is hardly a leap of design genius!
And you mentioned chocolate and awesome design in the same sentence!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:
rtharper
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
Shadow
Oct 27, 09:47 AM
I. Hate. Greenpeace. I've wasted seconds of my life 'listening' to them and its all rubbish.
http://www.apple.com/environment/
http://www.apple.com/environment/
roadbloc
Apr 4, 04:54 PM
I stand corrected.
BobbyDigital
Sep 13, 11:26 PM
touch screen dialing sucks, not being able to feel buttons is actually a big deal, even though most numbers are dialed through contacts list.
Very true... I wish there was a way to make a touchscreen have a tactile feel... If there was a way, I'm sure Apple would be the one to do it.
Very true... I wish there was a way to make a touchscreen have a tactile feel... If there was a way, I'm sure Apple would be the one to do it.
Multimedia
Oct 12, 06:16 PM
Give me a palate of colors to choose from and tell me which one to eleminate from my choices first. My choice would be Red. :mad: :p
Neuroguy
Oct 12, 08:15 PM
Screw this "Red ipod" and all the "do-gooder" photo ops.
Bring us a Merom Mac Book Pro!!!
Neuroguy
Bring us a Merom Mac Book Pro!!!
Neuroguy
VPrime
Apr 30, 05:02 PM
The bottleneck is internet speed. Until the world has South Korean-esque internet speeds, physical media isn't going anywhere.
Well he was talking about things happening in the Future. 2016 is a long time from now especially in the tech world. Quite possible for internet speeds to catch up.
What kind of media do you expect that "cloud" to store data with? Your statement delves into the realm of privacy concern.
Cloud storage already exists. Look at dropbox, amazon, wuala, Carbonite. Lots of stuff which can handle user files and media already. Again, the person I quoted was talking about things in 2016, so quite possible for things to change by then.
Also look at services like Netflix and itunes. They seem to be handling "cloud" based streaming just fine. Even right now in 2011 you can watch an HD movie by just streaming it to your device rather than using a physical disk. Who knows what can happen in 5 years in the tech industry.
Well he was talking about things happening in the Future. 2016 is a long time from now especially in the tech world. Quite possible for internet speeds to catch up.
What kind of media do you expect that "cloud" to store data with? Your statement delves into the realm of privacy concern.
Cloud storage already exists. Look at dropbox, amazon, wuala, Carbonite. Lots of stuff which can handle user files and media already. Again, the person I quoted was talking about things in 2016, so quite possible for things to change by then.
Also look at services like Netflix and itunes. They seem to be handling "cloud" based streaming just fine. Even right now in 2011 you can watch an HD movie by just streaming it to your device rather than using a physical disk. Who knows what can happen in 5 years in the tech industry.
MacRumors
Nov 13, 12:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
In yet another example of a high-profile developer team stepping back from Apple's App Store, Rogue Amoeba today announced (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/20091113AFSTPost.php) in a lengthy blog post that it will no longer develop applications for the iPhone following an extended run-in with App Store reviewers over a bug fix update to the company's Airfoil Speakers Touch (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/17/airfoil-speakers-touch-now-available-in-app-store/) application. The application allows users to stream any audio content from a host computer directly to an iPhone or iPod touch.
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.
While Apple's objections to the use of Apple-owned images in iPhone applications are well-known, Rogue Amoeba's situation was rather unique in that the images did not originate from the iPhone application itself, but were being sent from the host computer sending audio to the device. Those images were generated using Mac OS X tools specifically designed to aid developers in this process.As you can see, Airfoil Speakers Touch displays an image of the sending Mac, with a screenshot showing the source application. If you're sending from an iMac with Safari as your source (as pictured), it shows your iMac running Safari. If you're sending from a MacBook Pro, it shows a MacBook Pro, and so on. These computer images are provided by Mac OS X itself, using a public function expressly for this purpose.
We also show the source application's icon - Safari in the above example. This icon also comes from a public function provided by Apple as part of Mac OS X. These functions are expressly made to enable developers to get this artwork, and use it just as we are.After multiple rejections, including one involving a sympathetic Apple employee who attempted to assist with the situation, Rogue Amoeba was finally able to satisfy Apple's reviewers by stripping out the "Apple-owned" images and substituting in an image of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo linked to an explanation page (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/iphone/ping/eff.php) detailing the company's difficulties with Apple.
The lengthy and frustrating experience has clearly led the developers to reevaluate their efforts for the iPhone platform, and they have decided to step back from further App Store development.The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we're adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we're focusing on the Mac.
Article Link: Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
In yet another example of a high-profile developer team stepping back from Apple's App Store, Rogue Amoeba today announced (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/20091113AFSTPost.php) in a lengthy blog post that it will no longer develop applications for the iPhone following an extended run-in with App Store reviewers over a bug fix update to the company's Airfoil Speakers Touch (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/17/airfoil-speakers-touch-now-available-in-app-store/) application. The application allows users to stream any audio content from a host computer directly to an iPhone or iPod touch.
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.
While Apple's objections to the use of Apple-owned images in iPhone applications are well-known, Rogue Amoeba's situation was rather unique in that the images did not originate from the iPhone application itself, but were being sent from the host computer sending audio to the device. Those images were generated using Mac OS X tools specifically designed to aid developers in this process.As you can see, Airfoil Speakers Touch displays an image of the sending Mac, with a screenshot showing the source application. If you're sending from an iMac with Safari as your source (as pictured), it shows your iMac running Safari. If you're sending from a MacBook Pro, it shows a MacBook Pro, and so on. These computer images are provided by Mac OS X itself, using a public function expressly for this purpose.
We also show the source application's icon - Safari in the above example. This icon also comes from a public function provided by Apple as part of Mac OS X. These functions are expressly made to enable developers to get this artwork, and use it just as we are.After multiple rejections, including one involving a sympathetic Apple employee who attempted to assist with the situation, Rogue Amoeba was finally able to satisfy Apple's reviewers by stripping out the "Apple-owned" images and substituting in an image of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo linked to an explanation page (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/iphone/ping/eff.php) detailing the company's difficulties with Apple.
The lengthy and frustrating experience has clearly led the developers to reevaluate their efforts for the iPhone platform, and they have decided to step back from further App Store development.The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we're adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we're focusing on the Mac.
Article Link: Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
thedbp
Oct 12, 08:20 PM
Valentine's Day.
A red iPod will make a KILLING for Valentine's Day.
Eat it up, capitalists!
A red iPod will make a KILLING for Valentine's Day.
Eat it up, capitalists!
spicyapple
Sep 9, 01:38 AM
Is 20% speed improvement a lot for a core 2 designation?
TheSideshow
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 08:40 PM
I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
If the iMac would come with a top of the line graphic card or as a BTO, it would be even more popular.
But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.
I agree something is coming, but it does not have to be a mini. It could be a modified Mac Pro enclosure with liquid cooling for the graphic cards, CPU(s) and chip set. Mini or Maxi not sure. The system will also need to support overclocking of the CPU and Graphic cards. We will find out soon (prob October) for the holidays.;)
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
If the iMac would come with a top of the line graphic card or as a BTO, it would be even more popular.
But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.
I agree something is coming, but it does not have to be a mini. It could be a modified Mac Pro enclosure with liquid cooling for the graphic cards, CPU(s) and chip set. Mini or Maxi not sure. The system will also need to support overclocking of the CPU and Graphic cards. We will find out soon (prob October) for the holidays.;)
jonnymo5
Mar 29, 12:57 PM
Hmmm looks like the analyst just took the current Symbian market share and gave it to Windows7 for 2015. I think that is very naive. I think that many more people will move to Android, iPhone and WebOS in the time it takes Nokia to ramp up the Windows phones.
RollTide
Apr 30, 01:35 PM
When the hell are they gonna re-implement spaces !!@$%#^&(&)(#
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:54 PM
There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
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.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
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.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
iGary
Sep 10, 04:27 PM
I hate to say it, but my guess is this is an iPod event, not a MB MBP event. ;)
rmitchell
Sep 13, 09:57 PM
Ok Guys,
I know I've never posted before and I have 0 credibility in the apple rumors field but I've been sitting on something for about a month now that I wasn't sure when to let out.
I have a friend who was at a mobile conference on computing about a month ago who let me in on a demo of the apple iPhone that he saw. It had a covered company logo which he caught a glimpse of (it was a Samsung system.) The kicker on the whole system is the method of display built on the phone.
It has a built in projector that puts the display of the screen on any local area (such as a wall.) That is the secret to the apple iPhone. I'll understand if I'm bashed on here and have no support but I'm just reporting the information that I've been given (admittedly second hand but hopefully I'm on the right track.)
Rob
I know I've never posted before and I have 0 credibility in the apple rumors field but I've been sitting on something for about a month now that I wasn't sure when to let out.
I have a friend who was at a mobile conference on computing about a month ago who let me in on a demo of the apple iPhone that he saw. It had a covered company logo which he caught a glimpse of (it was a Samsung system.) The kicker on the whole system is the method of display built on the phone.
It has a built in projector that puts the display of the screen on any local area (such as a wall.) That is the secret to the apple iPhone. I'll understand if I'm bashed on here and have no support but I'm just reporting the information that I've been given (admittedly second hand but hopefully I'm on the right track.)
Rob
No comments:
Post a Comment