Zwhaler
Aug 24, 06:39 PM
All I can say is thank god...
rjohnstone
Apr 26, 01:31 PM
It mostly has to do with if it is confusing. Apple has a trade mark on "App Store" to sell applications through an online store. Amazon is using "Appstore" and is selling applications through an online store. Apple has a pretty strong case that Amazon is infringing on their trademark. If Amazon used "Appstore" for a chain of tire rotating store, Amazon could probably be in the clear. As it stands they are too close in intended use. Microsofts strategy is to invalidate the trademark. It's up to the USPTO to decide on the trademark.
Apple doesn't have the trademark yet.
It's still in the opposition phase. ;)
Apple doesn't have the trademark yet.
It's still in the opposition phase. ;)
applefan289
Mar 24, 01:41 PM
anyone want to guess what we will see in the new imac?
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
Donnacha
Nov 27, 05:05 PM
*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
MM2270
Sep 7, 12:14 PM
I agree with everyone here that if Apple only intros a movie purchase model, it will suck. Most people don't want to own movies. After all, you don't see many music rental services out there in the brick and mortar world, but there are millions of movie rental places. It's a tried and true model that they should emulate to an extent and bring to the online world. Of course, they should innovate on the basic model as Apple is known to do.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
sunfast
Aug 24, 06:23 PM
One day I'll buy a mini - they look so sweet. And with a C2D they'll go sweet too!
Dunepilot
Sep 6, 10:16 AM
The Superdrive option in the base model has gone.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
There's some truth in this. Apple's approach to optical drives has been haphazard for some time now.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
There's some truth in this. Apple's approach to optical drives has been haphazard for some time now.
Unggoy Murderer
Apr 26, 01:17 PM
I think Apple deserves to trademark the word App or App Store. When I see App Store, I think Apple. Companies who effectively steal Apples hard work should be made to change their name because I believe Apple did make mainstream use of the word, I had never heard anyone say App before the App store.
twoodcc
Mar 25, 12:12 PM
congrats to 4JNA for 6 million points!
Mal
Mar 24, 01:02 PM
Would definitely be great if they would just support off-the-shelf graphics cards. I'd be a little surprised, but I've given up saying that Apple will or won't do something just because of their prior decisions.
jW
jW
kiljoy616
Mar 24, 09:51 PM
AMD Radeon HD 6970
Holy guacamole! :D
Holy guacamole! :D
pyroza
Nov 24, 10:52 PM
In-N-Out Double Double (ketchup and mustard, no spread, no tomato, grilled onions), well done fries, and a neapolitan shake. Om nom nom :D
roland.g
Apr 19, 11:10 AM
Free upgrade to Lion when it releases?
Doubt it. Not unless you are talking about the 14 day or announcement window. Probably along the lines of all machines purchased after WWDC Lion announcement and prior to release have option to get upgrade disc for $9.99 shipping. Unless at WWDC they say that Lion will be out in October.
Doubt it. Not unless you are talking about the 14 day or announcement window. Probably along the lines of all machines purchased after WWDC Lion announcement and prior to release have option to get upgrade disc for $9.99 shipping. Unless at WWDC they say that Lion will be out in October.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 7, 12:41 PM
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
boncellis
Sep 6, 07:39 PM
:p I concur. iTunes is getting too busy with Music/Audiobooks/Podcasts/TV Shows and Video already...
As some have suggested perhaps "Showtime" refers to something like a new app...
B
It could be, but Apple has so much invested in the iTunes "brand" that I don't see them moving away from it. I agree they really should improve it though, the video playback and iTMS browsing need to be faster.
As some have suggested perhaps "Showtime" refers to something like a new app...
B
It could be, but Apple has so much invested in the iTunes "brand" that I don't see them moving away from it. I agree they really should improve it though, the video playback and iTMS browsing need to be faster.
Chris Bangle
Aug 25, 10:33 AM
Why would updated mac minis be such a high security product. Its nothing revolutionary so why would apple want so much security on the shipping of them? Im hoping for something BIG
aafuss1
Sep 6, 10:10 PM
Is the 160GB BTO HD perpendicular?
Mr. Gates
Mar 23, 04:53 AM
I would need a 2.4 TB iPod to store all of my Music.
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
shawnce
Jul 19, 08:17 PM
Vista sucks, there is very little incentive for people to upgrade.
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
CIA
Apr 13, 01:11 AM
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
I second this.
I second this.
Lollypop
Jul 18, 01:45 AM
Lets see how they make this happen, movies are big downloads (or so im told :p ;) ) people wont like spending a lot of time downloading a file only for it to become completely useless a while later. But if it increases the content in the iTMS then so be it!
BenRoethig
Sep 6, 06:08 PM
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
I'm guessing that Apple probably had a bunch of yonahs sitting around and hoped they could sell some off.
Bet the combo and Superdrives are all unchanged-the suppliers the same as February's model.
Considering Panasonic and Pioneer are the only ones who make slot loading notebook drives, I'd guess so.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
I'm guessing that Apple probably had a bunch of yonahs sitting around and hoped they could sell some off.
Bet the combo and Superdrives are all unchanged-the suppliers the same as February's model.
Considering Panasonic and Pioneer are the only ones who make slot loading notebook drives, I'd guess so.
Horrortaxi
May 2, 02:59 AM
I must have missed something. What does latin have to do with "Saving" Apple? :confused:
Nothing at all. He was showing us how smart he is. I tremble before his ostentatious display of knowledge. He is truly my superior. He doesn't need a point--that's how cool he is.
Nothing at all. He was showing us how smart he is. I tremble before his ostentatious display of knowledge. He is truly my superior. He doesn't need a point--that's how cool he is.
No comments:
Post a Comment