needthephone
Sep 27, 07:13 AM
I thought 3G was the coming thing? I am on 3 in OZ and now Vodaphone, Telstra and Optus have all gone 3G- GSM seems a bit old hat doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_System_for_Mobile_Communications
Also comapnies like 3 are trying to compete by offering downloadable songs as a part of their service how will apple deal with this - surely comapnies like 3 won't offer apple phones??
No offence to the US (after all you give us apple , MS, Google ) but whenever I go there I am taken aback at how dated the "cell" (as they still call them there) phone networks are over there compared to Europe or even OZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_System_for_Mobile_Communications
Also comapnies like 3 are trying to compete by offering downloadable songs as a part of their service how will apple deal with this - surely comapnies like 3 won't offer apple phones??
No offence to the US (after all you give us apple , MS, Google ) but whenever I go there I am taken aback at how dated the "cell" (as they still call them there) phone networks are over there compared to Europe or even OZ
OdduWon
Sep 12, 01:31 AM
this is great:) were going to be able to control front row with our new touch screen ipods. apple has kept this "close to the chest" because it involves leapord, core animation and the new front row. they even showed it to us when demoing core animation. they had all the data for the floating songs right there while they were just raining down in the background. think about it you could see a what you streamed to the tv on the ipod and touch albums or dvd covers floating in the library. :D hope bluetooth is enough for that seems the movie dongle transef speeds are going to be fast. hope they do release a mac mini tubeport package too.
Machead III
Sep 3, 09:25 AM
Well, I just sold my iMac, so I'm coming to you all from the tiny screen of my Nokia N70.
I'm looking to aquire a MacBook. Here in the UK we have our iPod rebate deal until mid-October, which will effectively knock the price of a Nano on eBay off the price of my machine.
What would you say, will there be MacBooks before mid-October? I don't want to wait any longer than that. Should I bother waiting or buy now?
I'm looking to aquire a MacBook. Here in the UK we have our iPod rebate deal until mid-October, which will effectively knock the price of a Nano on eBay off the price of my machine.
What would you say, will there be MacBooks before mid-October? I don't want to wait any longer than that. Should I bother waiting or buy now?
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 01:10 PM
Granted, this is a good thing.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
addicted44
Apr 22, 10:21 AM
Why do I get the feeling that the people downvoting this are the same who were upvoting Amazon's service, despite Apple's service being "like Amazon's, except licensed from the labels"? Who wants to bet Amazon gets screwed when they go back to renegotiate their deal with the labels?
(Its like the people who were anti-patents, and downvoted news of Apple suing Samsung, but upvoted news of Samsung suing Apple for patents).
(Its like the people who were anti-patents, and downvoted news of Apple suing Samsung, but upvoted news of Samsung suing Apple for patents).
alexdrinan
Jul 14, 01:52 PM
while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.
tbobmccoy
Mar 23, 05:35 PM
Stay classy Austin :rolleyes:
As for the Senator's request, they cannot be required to take it down. If cops are so overt that apps can bust their checkpoints, maybe they should be floating checkpoints?
As for the Senator's request, they cannot be required to take it down. If cops are so overt that apps can bust their checkpoints, maybe they should be floating checkpoints?
Vegasman
Apr 19, 08:51 AM
If they try shafting apple on parts i'm sure another crippling law suit would occur. Isn't apple now capable of making it's own chips didn't they buy up something ? Lot's of telephones and all the tablets are mac copies to some degree i suppose it's the best form of flattery, most people see this.If i'm right all these items are at a lower price point than apple ? I mean come on you would never pay more than an apple product for an item which is heavily influenced right ?
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
Six Flags Great Adventure,
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
six flags great adventure 2011
Mr. Gates
Mar 23, 04:44 PM
Looks like I have a new $#!T List
Lollypop
Sep 10, 09:50 AM
Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
Its nice to say multiple instances of everything, but thats not really ideal... do I really want to run 3 copies of final cut and 2 copies of handbrake and and and and to efficiently use my machine? doesnt running multiple copies of something also come with a bit of a memory overhead? The core wars will also run into problems, just like the Mhz war did, Mhz doesnt always mean performance, nor does core count.
Apple now has a entire lineup with dual cores, they will have to think ahead, and make their software run effectively on 4 or 8 cpu's.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
I dont see how cheap hardware wil be a problem for a xMac, it isnt really a problem for the mac pro??? With 2 pci express slots people wont have to much choices (but at least they will have a choice), and its very very rare to have PC hardware that will even work on a mac, rom issues are normally to blame. But I agree apple needs to compete, and will have to be very very inovative if they go xMac classed machine.
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
Its nice to say multiple instances of everything, but thats not really ideal... do I really want to run 3 copies of final cut and 2 copies of handbrake and and and and to efficiently use my machine? doesnt running multiple copies of something also come with a bit of a memory overhead? The core wars will also run into problems, just like the Mhz war did, Mhz doesnt always mean performance, nor does core count.
Apple now has a entire lineup with dual cores, they will have to think ahead, and make their software run effectively on 4 or 8 cpu's.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
I dont see how cheap hardware wil be a problem for a xMac, it isnt really a problem for the mac pro??? With 2 pci express slots people wont have to much choices (but at least they will have a choice), and its very very rare to have PC hardware that will even work on a mac, rom issues are normally to blame. But I agree apple needs to compete, and will have to be very very inovative if they go xMac classed machine.
langis.elbasunu
Mar 23, 06:27 PM
also, LOL @ senators caring about an app "saving lives". How many wars are we currently fighting at the moment? How many innocent lives have been lost?
k2director
Apr 4, 12:33 PM
Wow, it seems the majority of posters here are immediately questioning the security guard for shooting a bunch of criminals! I guess he should have been more polite, and given the criminals the chance to shoot him first! Or to run off and try to rob an honest business another time!
America used to be a country of strong, self-reliant people that would have absolutely no problem with taking down violent criminals *asap*. They would have no tolerance for thuggery, and the result is that there would be far less of it! Now America is filled with a bunch of lambs, who've become so "civilized" that they've lost the instincts needed to confront bullies. Instead, they round themselves up in the pens of a police state, where they leave the unpleasant business of personal defense to "professionals" (the police). And then they whine when the professionals don't do enough to protect them, or start to prey upon them because they *are* so weak.
This is what happens when earlier generations make a country strong, but are replaced by their children who merely inherit a strong country, with no idea how to maintain it.
There's only one appropriate course of action with thieves and criminals like the ones described in the article: give them one chance to surrender (not to quit and go home, but surrender), and if they don't take it, then shoot them. Not only is that justice, but it also discourages other criminals far more than the potential for jail terms ever could.
America used to be a country of strong, self-reliant people that would have absolutely no problem with taking down violent criminals *asap*. They would have no tolerance for thuggery, and the result is that there would be far less of it! Now America is filled with a bunch of lambs, who've become so "civilized" that they've lost the instincts needed to confront bullies. Instead, they round themselves up in the pens of a police state, where they leave the unpleasant business of personal defense to "professionals" (the police). And then they whine when the professionals don't do enough to protect them, or start to prey upon them because they *are* so weak.
This is what happens when earlier generations make a country strong, but are replaced by their children who merely inherit a strong country, with no idea how to maintain it.
There's only one appropriate course of action with thieves and criminals like the ones described in the article: give them one chance to surrender (not to quit and go home, but surrender), and if they don't take it, then shoot them. Not only is that justice, but it also discourages other criminals far more than the potential for jail terms ever could.
infidel69
Apr 14, 05:36 PM
Glad to hear it:D
Im really stoked to see the Ivy Bridge benchmarks...the i72600k blew my mind:eek: I feel bad for the enthusiast folks who bought a 980x :(
Enthusiasts had the 980 for atleast 6 months now and it's still faster than any sb cpu. Alot of those guys already had x58 mobo's anyway. Now if you purchased a brand new 12 core Mac Pro then then I agree with you.
Im really stoked to see the Ivy Bridge benchmarks...the i72600k blew my mind:eek: I feel bad for the enthusiast folks who bought a 980x :(
Enthusiasts had the 980 for atleast 6 months now and it's still faster than any sb cpu. Alot of those guys already had x58 mobo's anyway. Now if you purchased a brand new 12 core Mac Pro then then I agree with you.
GGJstudios
Mar 21, 11:25 PM
Not false read #104 :D
I did read it. It doesn't answer why there are no viruses today, now that Mac OS has greater market share than ever, when there were viruses back when it had a much smaller market share. The market share theory is pure nonsense. It doesn't stand up to simple math.
I did read it. It doesn't answer why there are no viruses today, now that Mac OS has greater market share than ever, when there were viruses back when it had a much smaller market share. The market share theory is pure nonsense. It doesn't stand up to simple math.
stol
Apr 11, 07:26 AM
This is great news, I've been waiting for something like that for ages.
For all those people that fail to see how it could be useful, consider the following scenarios:
I got my Mac connected to some great speakers.
Now, a friend comes by for a visit, brings along his laptop and we want to hear some music from his iTunes --> messy cables, my friend standing with his laptop by the amplifier because that cable is short (�)
Another friend comes over. We want to listen to music from his/her iPod/iPhone/iPad --> messy cables.
My beloved speakers are self-amplified and connected directly to my mac or say, an external sound card --> even more complicated!
Same friends, different room - let's say a living room with a HTPC --> More cables.
All this could be accomplished with a few airport express units across the house which is somehow a luxury option money-wise and somehow redundant since I already have a wireless router and at least one computer up and running. Also, it would probably create more of a mess with the aforementioned setup (I would need a multiple input amplifier for my living room or an extra mixer for self-amplified speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think AX is a great device and I'll probably get one someday, but it sounds absurd that one device cannot stream audio to a computer.
And for those suggesting third-party software, this sounds great if I were the only using them. I cannot imagine telling my friends "hey, buy this $40 software so we can stream music to each other's computer". I'm not sure I could even convince them to install free software to mess with their audio setup. iOS users are ruled out of course.
For those suggesting iTunes home sharing: this is for personal use. I don't want to share my id/pass with anyone, and no one wants to share it with me.
For all those people that fail to see how it could be useful, consider the following scenarios:
I got my Mac connected to some great speakers.
Now, a friend comes by for a visit, brings along his laptop and we want to hear some music from his iTunes --> messy cables, my friend standing with his laptop by the amplifier because that cable is short (�)
Another friend comes over. We want to listen to music from his/her iPod/iPhone/iPad --> messy cables.
My beloved speakers are self-amplified and connected directly to my mac or say, an external sound card --> even more complicated!
Same friends, different room - let's say a living room with a HTPC --> More cables.
All this could be accomplished with a few airport express units across the house which is somehow a luxury option money-wise and somehow redundant since I already have a wireless router and at least one computer up and running. Also, it would probably create more of a mess with the aforementioned setup (I would need a multiple input amplifier for my living room or an extra mixer for self-amplified speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think AX is a great device and I'll probably get one someday, but it sounds absurd that one device cannot stream audio to a computer.
And for those suggesting third-party software, this sounds great if I were the only using them. I cannot imagine telling my friends "hey, buy this $40 software so we can stream music to each other's computer". I'm not sure I could even convince them to install free software to mess with their audio setup. iOS users are ruled out of course.
For those suggesting iTunes home sharing: this is for personal use. I don't want to share my id/pass with anyone, and no one wants to share it with me.
freedevil
Nov 14, 12:31 PM
Boo Hoo Rogue Amoeba. How stupid? Devs need to grow up.
apfhex
Sep 4, 07:37 PM
The device would not make a lot of sense by itself. There is more to this. Most people are waiting for a Media Center system. Sounds like the device would replace some cables that you can get for 40 bucks. I am refering to the cables that allow you to connect your Mac to the TV.
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
Alvi
May 3, 11:01 AM
That's nice from Apple, I personally find the Magic Mouse useless for what I do, it's just a nice toy. And a Trackpad would be more useful just for the Multitouch Gestures in combination with a Real Mouse
rtdunham
Sep 10, 07:04 PM
Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.
You're doing what Marshall McLuhan described: looking in a rearview mirror to anticipate the future. You might even be being a little arrogant about it. Y'think? I mean, what about those aluminum iPod minis? that same format's suggested for new nanos. Apple's smart to delineate its lines, and you're smart to note that. But neither Apple nor you would be smart to think that delineation has to be sustained...what, forever? Like wide and narrow ties (hair styles, skirt lengths) moving in and out of fashion, Apple, IMHO, will establish distinctions and evolve them over time. It won't always happen: we'll never see a black Apple laptop again, like the early models, but... Oh, wait!!!
bellbottoms forever
peace out
You're doing what Marshall McLuhan described: looking in a rearview mirror to anticipate the future. You might even be being a little arrogant about it. Y'think? I mean, what about those aluminum iPod minis? that same format's suggested for new nanos. Apple's smart to delineate its lines, and you're smart to note that. But neither Apple nor you would be smart to think that delineation has to be sustained...what, forever? Like wide and narrow ties (hair styles, skirt lengths) moving in and out of fashion, Apple, IMHO, will establish distinctions and evolve them over time. It won't always happen: we'll never see a black Apple laptop again, like the early models, but... Oh, wait!!!
bellbottoms forever
peace out
Ktulu
Sep 4, 07:24 PM
Appleinsider, however, also claims that Apple has been working on their next killer device. Instead of a video iPod device to drive movie sales, they believe a video streaming device is in the works:
I know it says Instead of a video iPod, they believe a video streaming device. As others have stated, this doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a "Special Media Event".
What if this rumor is half right: There is a new video streaming device ready to be demoed, but the "one more thing" could be that there is a video iPod also ready, and the movie service works the same way with it as the iTMS, but the video iPod can also stream the videos to your TV. There are limitations, such as battery life, but it could be limited to just being able to stream when the video iPod is connected to a power supply.
Just a thought....:rolleyes:
I know it says Instead of a video iPod, they believe a video streaming device. As others have stated, this doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a "Special Media Event".
What if this rumor is half right: There is a new video streaming device ready to be demoed, but the "one more thing" could be that there is a video iPod also ready, and the movie service works the same way with it as the iTMS, but the video iPod can also stream the videos to your TV. There are limitations, such as battery life, but it could be limited to just being able to stream when the video iPod is connected to a power supply.
Just a thought....:rolleyes:
dvdhsu
Nov 13, 07:26 PM
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.
You have an excellent point there.
You have an excellent point there.
Eddyisgreat
Feb 26, 12:44 PM
Truth
//thread
//thread
wesk702
Apr 4, 11:44 AM
seems a little excessive. Hopefully there were some bits to the story left out.
Otherwise, yeah... a little excessive.
Otherwise, yeah... a little excessive.