milo
Sep 5, 05:31 PM
Milo.I have my MacBook sitting next to and connected via S-Video to my TV and use iTunes sharing via Airport to watch videos almost every day..
The key to good quality over iTunes sharing is to make the movie hinted.
And it streams just fine..
I never said the streaming isn't possible. I just said there isn't a HARDWARE device like the airport that makes this possible without a computer.
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
The key to good quality over iTunes sharing is to make the movie hinted.
And it streams just fine..
I never said the streaming isn't possible. I just said there isn't a HARDWARE device like the airport that makes this possible without a computer.
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
rdrr
Sep 15, 06:39 PM
...
Widgets?
...
Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.
Widgets?
...
Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:15 PM
Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
you mean macdonalds?
you mean macdonalds?
OneMammoth
Apr 28, 03:42 PM
Microsoft is DEAD. And so is Google.
GO APPLE!
Wow! Really! No need to be afraid, we can all get along. There is space for everyone here.
GO APPLE!
Wow! Really! No need to be afraid, we can all get along. There is space for everyone here.
gri
Apr 22, 03:53 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
digitalbiker
Aug 23, 06:45 PM
Not really. Creative was going broke.
Who says Creative was going broke?
They have been around a long time and seem to be doing better than ever. They have a pretty extensive and diverse product line and they supply many of the OEM computer manufacturers with products.
I thought that their patent claim was pretty lame. But the US patent office seems to be giving companies patents on anything these days.
Apple is a pretty litigation happy company themslves so I guess this is just another line item on the Apple corporate lawyer expense account.
Who says Creative was going broke?
They have been around a long time and seem to be doing better than ever. They have a pretty extensive and diverse product line and they supply many of the OEM computer manufacturers with products.
I thought that their patent claim was pretty lame. But the US patent office seems to be giving companies patents on anything these days.
Apple is a pretty litigation happy company themslves so I guess this is just another line item on the Apple corporate lawyer expense account.
poppe
Aug 28, 11:11 PM
Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a new enclosure but I think that allowing the prospect of one to be the determining factor in the purchase of a machine is ridiculous. As much as I would LOVE to have a gunmetal colored mbp, if it came out tomorrow I wouldn't be upset that I have a silver one because I truly do love my machine. Apple will always continue to innovate and release new products, and IMO now that they're using intel chips the rate of obsolescence will increase (in terms of harware and performance more than appearance).
Oh yes that makes sense.
I truly and honestly think the only reason I dont praise the Powerbook look is because now look how many computers are getting that aluminum finish and trying to look like Apple... Though they fail, it doesn't mean it still makes me want a change (if that makes sense?).
Oh yes that makes sense.
I truly and honestly think the only reason I dont praise the Powerbook look is because now look how many computers are getting that aluminum finish and trying to look like Apple... Though they fail, it doesn't mean it still makes me want a change (if that makes sense?).
toddybody
Apr 14, 12:52 PM
Not real Macs.
Whew, thanks for clearing that up...I was really under the wrong impression :rolleyes:
Whew, thanks for clearing that up...I was really under the wrong impression :rolleyes:
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 05:47 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
Leej
Sep 26, 10:12 PM
Already have a Cingular deal. Sweet!
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 05:15 PM
I see Apple stock going up on this news. $100 Million is getting off easy. Could have been a LOT worse.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
puckhead193
Sep 19, 01:34 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
jamesryanbell
Apr 22, 11:22 AM
Not trying to force this mentality on anyone, but for ME: No Ivy Bridge, no care.
I'm sure it'll be a great machine though just like the current one. It's just not enough difference to make me upgrade. (Just like iPad 1 to iPad 2)
I'm sure it'll be a great machine though just like the current one. It's just not enough difference to make me upgrade. (Just like iPad 1 to iPad 2)
rtharper
Sep 14, 10:44 AM
Along with updated Apature, could Apple launch CS2 universal with Adobe?
No. Adobe has already said they won't go Universal until CS3
No. Adobe has already said they won't go Universal until CS3
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
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.
mcarnes
Sep 19, 01:56 PM
I'd gladly wait overnight for a solid 1080p movie that played in quicktime. Don't need the DVD features (or frickin' ads). Just give me the movie.
Hunts121
Jul 14, 03:32 PM
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....
other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:53 PM
They ... are using buffered memory (slow)
Have you seen the benchmarks?
The Xeon systems scream, even with the "slow" memory.
While some contrived tests showed real latency issues with the FB-DIMM memory, for real-life applications the faster busses and large L2 caches make it a non-issue.
Focus on *system* performance, not on a particular detail.
Have you seen the benchmarks?
The Xeon systems scream, even with the "slow" memory.
While some contrived tests showed real latency issues with the FB-DIMM memory, for real-life applications the faster busses and large L2 caches make it a non-issue.
Focus on *system* performance, not on a particular detail.
dukebound85
Apr 11, 03:43 PM
To some extent, sure.
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
yg17
Sep 26, 10:34 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
When I was in DC, my Cingular service was horrible. Just like it was in New York City, St. Louis and New Orleans (pre Katrina, when cell towers were still standing) and every other large city I've been in.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service.
Cingular has their priorities wrong. They go for the rural markets, where people don't want to have anything to do with cell phones, and they ignore the big cities. And if you try to call customer service to complain about the piss poor service, or to try to fix a billing error (which are common with Cingular) then you'll be on hold for half an hour, and get nowhere with their customer service rep who's over in India. They are the worst company we have ever dealt with, and will be leaving them the day our contract is up in December. IMO, Apple is making a huge mistake by being exclusive with Cingular.
When I was in DC, my Cingular service was horrible. Just like it was in New York City, St. Louis and New Orleans (pre Katrina, when cell towers were still standing) and every other large city I've been in.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service.
Cingular has their priorities wrong. They go for the rural markets, where people don't want to have anything to do with cell phones, and they ignore the big cities. And if you try to call customer service to complain about the piss poor service, or to try to fix a billing error (which are common with Cingular) then you'll be on hold for half an hour, and get nowhere with their customer service rep who's over in India. They are the worst company we have ever dealt with, and will be leaving them the day our contract is up in December. IMO, Apple is making a huge mistake by being exclusive with Cingular.
magbarn
Apr 23, 09:15 AM
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?
God why don't people research, unless apple decides to not skip directly to ivy bridge, you will NOT get the same intel sb igp as the mbp 13, instead you will get one that's at least 20-30% slower. Something's had to give to get the 35w tdp on the sb mbp cpus down to the 25w/17w level.
God why don't people research, unless apple decides to not skip directly to ivy bridge, you will NOT get the same intel sb igp as the mbp 13, instead you will get one that's at least 20-30% slower. Something's had to give to get the 35w tdp on the sb mbp cpus down to the 25w/17w level.
MultiMediaWill
Apr 4, 11:46 AM
Steve Jobs: "you're robbing us wrong"
ripfrankwhite
Sep 5, 12:45 PM
i just picked up 30 shares of AAPL. i have a very strong outlook on the next 6 months.
Gonna need a few more shares to make any money, but good effort. ;)
Gonna need a few more shares to make any money, but good effort. ;)
0 comments:
Post a Comment