BenRoethig
Aug 24, 08:37 AM
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Assuming the feds would sign off, do you know how quickly everyone else would file an anti-trust suit if that happened?
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
I'd kill for X-Fi technology on a Mac.
Assuming the feds would sign off, do you know how quickly everyone else would file an anti-trust suit if that happened?
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
I'd kill for X-Fi technology on a Mac.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 01:51 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to kill someone. If I killed them, how could they learn a lesson?
-Don
you have no idea of the speed and the damage that can be done.
A smash move like that can cause a car to spin and then start rolling and can cause major injury to even death.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
hmm you think that is so hard....
Your ethics are beyond pathetic. You are showing that you care about no one but yourself.
You clearly are showing that your limit is legal but even then you clearly only follow the laws you like. Legally and ethical are not the same thing.
You need to work on your ethics. I hope and pray you never get into any position requires ethicical decision. That means you should never be a manager, an engineer, lawyer or a doctor as you clearly do not have ethics. Mind you most lawyers have no ethics which might explain the problem with out legally system.
-Don
you have no idea of the speed and the damage that can be done.
A smash move like that can cause a car to spin and then start rolling and can cause major injury to even death.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
hmm you think that is so hard....
Your ethics are beyond pathetic. You are showing that you care about no one but yourself.
You clearly are showing that your limit is legal but even then you clearly only follow the laws you like. Legally and ethical are not the same thing.
You need to work on your ethics. I hope and pray you never get into any position requires ethicical decision. That means you should never be a manager, an engineer, lawyer or a doctor as you clearly do not have ethics. Mind you most lawyers have no ethics which might explain the problem with out legally system.
briloronmacrumo
Mar 22, 11:52 PM
GeekBench 2 benchmarks http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/ of the new MBPs with Sandy Bridge would indicate otherwise. This review said: "....the fastest MacBook Pro is 80% faster than the fastest previous-generation MacBook Pro.". My guess is a similar situation might be true for the iMac and it will be faster ( otherwise, there's little point to a rev )
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.
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/
iApples
Apr 4, 12:28 PM
Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Well said.
I don't feel bad for criminals... I rather see him die than an innocent bystander that was just visiting the Apple store.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Well said.
I don't feel bad for criminals... I rather see him die than an innocent bystander that was just visiting the Apple store.
gnasher729
Mar 30, 12:14 PM
What about "Burger Store" ?
Let's say you have a conversation with a friend like this "I'd really like a burger right now. " "Ok, where shall we go? " "To the nearest xxx, of course!". Which of these could you imagine saying without your friend thinking you are weird:
Burger King
Mc Donald's
burger place
burger store.
Let's say you have a conversation with a friend like this "I'd really like a burger right now. " "Ok, where shall we go? " "To the nearest xxx, of course!". Which of these could you imagine saying without your friend thinking you are weird:
Burger King
Mc Donald's
burger place
burger store.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 08:30 AM
Hey, across the pond, Nokia's putting in 3.2 MP's in some models with a Carl Zeiss.
But I doubt we'd be seeing an iPhone here.
Wait a minute! It the event is Sept. 24 here, wouldn't it be Sept. 25 in London? Is it a relay there?
But I doubt we'd be seeing an iPhone here.
Wait a minute! It the event is Sept. 24 here, wouldn't it be Sept. 25 in London? Is it a relay there?
g7by08believeit
Oct 12, 05:23 PM
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
:D Made you Look :p
:D Made you Look :p
DavidLeblond
Sep 5, 02:12 PM
I'm hoping for iMacs because I could care less about downloading Movies. Hell the only TV I download are the free eps. Unless you can get me 5.1 surround, DVD quality for a monthly fee that is less than Netflix... well, Netflix is still king to me. :)
miamialley
Mar 23, 05:38 PM
Nobody likes drunk driving, but Apple cannot pull this. Freedom of speech!
mrbrown
Mar 23, 07:17 PM
If you're drunk enough that you shouldn't be driving, no app is going to save you. It's as simple as that.
c-Row
Aug 24, 01:25 AM
MS [...] come up with [...] radically new way [...] that actually works
Whenever did something like this happen?! :confused: ;)
Whenever did something like this happen?! :confused: ;)
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:39 PM
Amen, brother... M$ wants to have it their way but not allow anyone else to do the same.
Care to explain how App�� differs?
Care to explain how App�� differs?
LarryC
Apr 30, 11:35 PM
Aurichie,
Thank you, for your comments. You make some very valid points. I don't really know much about this whole cloud storage thing. I suppose I really need to read up on that. Is this just another name for something like the commercials I am hearing a lot lately about a company called carbonite? Just an offsite storage method that we pay a yearly fee for? If so, then I could certainly see a real benefit to something like that. I currently have over 132GB of iTunes media. I know it's a lot. I have a huge number of audio books, an even larger Podcast collection and a pretty good amount of music. I will have to look into this cloud storage and see what it offers. Thanks again.
Thank you, for your comments. You make some very valid points. I don't really know much about this whole cloud storage thing. I suppose I really need to read up on that. Is this just another name for something like the commercials I am hearing a lot lately about a company called carbonite? Just an offsite storage method that we pay a yearly fee for? If so, then I could certainly see a real benefit to something like that. I currently have over 132GB of iTunes media. I know it's a lot. I have a huge number of audio books, an even larger Podcast collection and a pretty good amount of music. I will have to look into this cloud storage and see what it offers. Thanks again.
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
I still have a netscape T-shirt from the mid-to-late 90s with a Mozilla and "Internet's Killer App" on the back .. and Web App .. everyone uses that term (not just java) to describe some sort of pluggable thing into <insert web service> framework .. you could say that Jobs pioneered some of this back at NeXT with Objective C Web Objects .. but that might be a stretch if you ask Booch or the OMG
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
I still have a netscape T-shirt from the mid-to-late 90s with a Mozilla and "Internet's Killer App" on the back .. and Web App .. everyone uses that term (not just java) to describe some sort of pluggable thing into <insert web service> framework .. you could say that Jobs pioneered some of this back at NeXT with Objective C Web Objects .. but that might be a stretch if you ask Booch or the OMG
Glideslope
Apr 4, 11:52 AM
Everyone decrying the head shot, if you read the better of the two articles, you will see that gunfire was exchanged. The guard didn't just open up on people running away with loot. They opened up on the guard in the attempt to get away. If that happens, all bets are off on what the guard can do.
Arm Chair Enforcers. Easy to complain until you've had the experience. :apple:
Arm Chair Enforcers. Easy to complain until you've had the experience. :apple:
jrober
Apr 20, 01:42 PM
From what I'm reading only GSM devices do this - so if you have the WiFi it is probably not doing it.
My iPad2 is a 3G one so should track wherever.
My iPad2 is a 3G one so should track wherever.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:42 AM
Looks the same to me! Its icons in a grid!
You should offer your legal services to Samsung. :p
You should offer your legal services to Samsung. :p
Steviejobz
Apr 4, 12:02 PM
The alleged robber was gunned down by Asian scalpers ;)
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
baryon
Apr 22, 02:20 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
ctachme
Sep 19, 01:49 PM
Considering that the iTS is like the 5th biggest music vendor, they sure suck at selling movies. 125k is nothing compared to real movie vendors.
Maybe when they get more than 75 movies. Amazon unbox started with like 2000 movies!
Maybe when they get more than 75 movies. Amazon unbox started with like 2000 movies!
kfscoll
Apr 25, 06:06 PM
...which is still a bottleneck.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
You're a silly man. Almost any standard SATA-II 2.5" form-factor SSD is faster than a standard MBA blade SSD. And a SATA-III 6Gbps SSD vs. the MBA SSD? Forget it.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
You're a silly man. Almost any standard SATA-II 2.5" form-factor SSD is faster than a standard MBA blade SSD. And a SATA-III 6Gbps SSD vs. the MBA SSD? Forget it.
Philberttheduck
Sep 12, 06:07 PM
I'm very happy about the gapless playback, and battery life, but generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
Pretty much sums up my mood hours afterwards. At the time, I was flaming pissed/disappointed. I'm pretty much utterly disappointed by this event.
But this iPod was almost "expected," from a business standpoint. Full screen iPod and iPhone; anything short of a 60/120GB iPod lineup and I'll see it as a huge letdown.
Steve's pre-Holiday event's bar is set at infinity +1.
I blame the no-show turtleneck sweater. :D
Pretty much sums up my mood hours afterwards. At the time, I was flaming pissed/disappointed. I'm pretty much utterly disappointed by this event.
But this iPod was almost "expected," from a business standpoint. Full screen iPod and iPhone; anything short of a 60/120GB iPod lineup and I'll see it as a huge letdown.
Steve's pre-Holiday event's bar is set at infinity +1.
I blame the no-show turtleneck sweater. :D
