madmax_2069
Apr 4, 10:12 PM
that would be one crazy mess to see, and the look of the police faces would be priceless. not to mention the look of the thieves face
jowie
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
mrw00tastic
Apr 25, 12:43 PM
If that is a guy holding that phone he needs to cut those nails...Damn hippy!
bigandy
Oct 17, 08:55 AM
As soon as someone creates a dual format drive all this fuss will die down. It was the same with DVD +/- . Give it a year and NEC will have a dual format drives for both computers and players and no-one will have to decide.
I'm not sure about what you're saying here, because content producers will still be having to supply the same film in two different formats.
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner.
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
Ick. This whole format war is nasty, but I guess I never understood why Apple decided to support blu-ray over HD-DVD. Seemed like they did it just to go against what Microsoft had chosen. The and the whole Steve wanting crippled hardware for another (his other) company's benefit over computer users...the whole situation stinks.
As a consumer I'm trying as hard as possible to sit this one out. :mad:
Have you read the format specifications? Blu Ray is clearly better (on paper at least), and I'd assume that's the reason they went with it.
I'm not sure about what you're saying here, because content producers will still be having to supply the same film in two different formats.
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner.
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
Ick. This whole format war is nasty, but I guess I never understood why Apple decided to support blu-ray over HD-DVD. Seemed like they did it just to go against what Microsoft had chosen. The and the whole Steve wanting crippled hardware for another (his other) company's benefit over computer users...the whole situation stinks.
As a consumer I'm trying as hard as possible to sit this one out. :mad:
Have you read the format specifications? Blu Ray is clearly better (on paper at least), and I'd assume that's the reason they went with it.
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
insignificantMB
Apr 25, 12:40 PM
Awe, and I was looking forward to the ipod touch looking mockup.
fswmacguy
May 4, 04:10 PM
To a user in a bright environment, it's a glare.
Just turn the screen brightness up. Don't be such a baby.
Even with the brightness on maximum, the iPad, which is a tablet, gets better battery life than most smartphones.
Just turn the screen brightness up. Don't be such a baby.
Even with the brightness on maximum, the iPad, which is a tablet, gets better battery life than most smartphones.
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:16 AM
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
No, probably the same as usual with the only extra being from us bozo's :D :D
No, probably the same as usual with the only extra being from us bozo's :D :D
JGowan
Oct 10, 09:46 PM
This sounds very intriguing!
sushi
Apr 16, 08:20 AM
Looks nice. Shape seems good for holding in your hand.
However, I believe that it's fake -- unless it's not metal. Reception would be an issue if it was metal.
However, I believe that it's fake -- unless it's not metal. Reception would be an issue if it was metal.
R.Perez
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
You really need to step out of your fanboi bubble, it seems a little silly to be honest.
You really need to step out of your fanboi bubble, it seems a little silly to be honest.
iliketomac
Nov 23, 07:11 PM
I can confirm these are indeed the prices you will see. As for other details, none have been given. I'm sure we'll be told the details just before opening, such as what discounts can or cannot be combined by customers, etc. Expect all new signage in the stores, as well as a switch from the traditional black shirts to bright red shirts which display a product on front and a clever saying on the back. iPod, iPod Shuffle, MacBook & iMac will be the variety you'll see.
Also of note...if you bought recently (in the last few days) and want to get in on the dicounted prices, bring your product back in and plead with the store managers...they have the authority to return and re-ring the sale with the discount sans any restocking fee. Of course, they also have the right to be jerks and say no.
One last thing...don't plan on getting much attention from the Mac Specialist tomorrow, they'll be busy ringing out sales. Know what you want and get in line. They've been building stock for the last few weeks, but some items, such as iMacs and MacBooks are in limited quantities. (Perhaps 30 of each model in stock...maximum)
VERY WELL SAID.... there are enough hints and temptations by Apple to encourage the local consumer - just head on in the retail stores or online first thing tomorrow..... :D Happy Shopping!!
Also of note...if you bought recently (in the last few days) and want to get in on the dicounted prices, bring your product back in and plead with the store managers...they have the authority to return and re-ring the sale with the discount sans any restocking fee. Of course, they also have the right to be jerks and say no.
One last thing...don't plan on getting much attention from the Mac Specialist tomorrow, they'll be busy ringing out sales. Know what you want and get in line. They've been building stock for the last few weeks, but some items, such as iMacs and MacBooks are in limited quantities. (Perhaps 30 of each model in stock...maximum)
VERY WELL SAID.... there are enough hints and temptations by Apple to encourage the local consumer - just head on in the retail stores or online first thing tomorrow..... :D Happy Shopping!!
bcslay
Sep 12, 02:59 AM
I believe that an airport extreme, or 802.11g is plenty fast to stream High-def Video, and shouldn't apple change the name of itunes at this point, since it is now a multimedia piece of software?
*LTD*
Mar 6, 11:59 AM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something... Examples:
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�
This is proven. Others react to Apple, change (or attempt to) in response to Apple, sometimes even to the point of having to admit it (i.e., Nokia and Samsung.) Some even design their entire strategy around competing against Apple. That's really saying something. And it is also puts paid the notion that Apple's leadership in this industry is without equal and that there's a good reason their value will surpass that of Exxon Mobil's faster than we think.
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�
This is proven. Others react to Apple, change (or attempt to) in response to Apple, sometimes even to the point of having to admit it (i.e., Nokia and Samsung.) Some even design their entire strategy around competing against Apple. That's really saying something. And it is also puts paid the notion that Apple's leadership in this industry is without equal and that there's a good reason their value will surpass that of Exxon Mobil's faster than we think.
Amazing Iceman
May 5, 01:14 AM
I think Apple really got it right with the iPad. The main focus won't be USB, SD card slot, HDMI or anything else like that. They have solutions for "connectivity" already. Even if it isn't your preferred solution, they won't go back and do it in a way they don't figure is the ideal way. If they eventually want to allow the additions of mice, printers, cameras, Apple would much rather all that stuff is done through Bluetooth, RFID, or WiFi.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
Heheh! Compared to your 30" Cinema Display, the iPad looks like an iPod Nano next to a 17" MBP.
The goal of the iPad is to be lightweight and functional. Overloading it with ports would make it as desirable as a Windows NetBook, and I'm not interested in those clunky devices.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
Heheh! Compared to your 30" Cinema Display, the iPad looks like an iPod Nano next to a 17" MBP.
The goal of the iPad is to be lightweight and functional. Overloading it with ports would make it as desirable as a Windows NetBook, and I'm not interested in those clunky devices.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
Jason S.
Apr 9, 12:13 PM
Well, to be fair I have no idea what happened but depending on what they did, it could be very unfair to say they just "hurt his feelings".
That being said, yeah, I think that poster is being a little delusional that they'd shut the whole store down over what he did.
At best Best Buy fires anyone involved that caused them to have to pay out some large fine and maybe any of the managers that were around at the time. But they aren't going to shut the store down over it. And that is how it should be, cause the whole store shouldn't suffer because of some really bad employees (but the bad employees should be gone).
So glad to know that there are still reasonable and rational thinkers in this world!
That being said, yeah, I think that poster is being a little delusional that they'd shut the whole store down over what he did.
At best Best Buy fires anyone involved that caused them to have to pay out some large fine and maybe any of the managers that were around at the time. But they aren't going to shut the store down over it. And that is how it should be, cause the whole store shouldn't suffer because of some really bad employees (but the bad employees should be gone).
So glad to know that there are still reasonable and rational thinkers in this world!
TimUSCA
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
Looks legit to me other than that last one... which looks 110% fake.
Analog Kid
Sep 12, 03:03 AM
I'm waiting to be disappointed. I realized that the anonymously submitted schedule of events could very well turn out to be true, in which case I'm not too miffed that I'll be missing live coverage of the event.
Here're my reservations:
- iTunes should be strictly music. iTube or iFilm or iMovies or iVideo or Apple Movie Store should be a separate application; or else name it iMedia and completely rethink the interface. I find that since the addition of video podcasts and TV shows, iTunes is getting really difficult to keep tidy and organized, even with features like smart playlists and a 20" screen. It looks like a big, sloppy mass of text.
- The price should be $11.99 - 9.99 for new movies, $9.99 - 7.99 for older ones, and an iPod version should be thrown in with the full-quality feature. Any more than that and I'll just buy and rip the DVD or, more likely, just download it elsewhere. This pricing structure is not going to happen, I know, and so I'm already less than thrilled.
- The wireless Mac-to-TV bridge has to be really cool and effortlessly simple (and PC compatible too). This proposed "TubePort" USB dongle sounds like the most likely solution for a cross-platform device, but I'm hoping that the AirPort in all its various incarnations (Express, Extreme) will get a revamp and allow for video streaming somehow.
- A true video iPod needs to come soon. As in, before Christmas. And I really don't think we're going to see it today.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I don't know if the event will live up to the hype. That seems to be Apple's nagging problem lately.
Glad to hear someone else bring up the iTunes interface. I've never understood why the Videos group has a different organizing structure than everything else, or why it's so rigid. I also hate having Podcasts mixed in with my music.
Apple's been trying to integrate the various media pieces it's been developing, but the "branding" guys got control of the decisions. They're trying to leverage the iPod and iTunes too much because they're recognizable. Why do my photos get sync'd to my iPod through iTunes?
I probably won't even throw down $10 for a downloaded movie with those kinds of restrictions. I think the industry is holding out for HD discs to reassert their DRM power, and they're too intent on locking everything down. Not useful and no fun. Digital is beautiful because it's flexible-- take the flexibility away and it's just another bunch of fragile, valuable data on my hard drive. I'll take the disc, and continue spreading my money among all the middlemen...
If Apple does set up the video store this way, it's going to flop. There's no incentive to consumers... No price break, and bandwidth limits the ease of use. If playing the file, or adjusting attributes messes with the meta-data then it's going to choke Time Machine. My biggest concern is that a failing movie store will kill Apple's momentum and the music store and iPod will suffer as well.
Apple could make this all worthwhile by offering foreign films everywhere. I'd buy foreign films for download if they weren't released in the US any other way. Maybe by distributing independent films they could convince the music industry to follow suit.
Why a USB dongle unless they're hoping to open up to the low end Windows folks? USB is the *worst* interface for streaming video-- it's a peripheral interface, not a streaming interface... It hides its inefficiency with bandwidth for now, but once people start using it for hard drives, and iPods, and video streaming and TV hookups and everything else it's going to fall over. A FireWire dongle would do the job much more cleanly.
I covet a new full screen iPod, even though my 5G is only a year or so old. Something about full screen just seems right. If they go that way, I'd hope they boost capacity too-- 60GB isn't enough to hold everything I've got and more video to boot.
I'm a little suspicious of the idea that we'll be seeing a run of new consumer products. Apple doesn't work that way-- they don't have the resources to develop a bunch of new, great stuff in parallel. We haven't seen much lately because they've been focused on new, redesigned iPods. Maybe they'll throw out a video streaming peripheral. Then there'll be another wait and possibly something else.
Here're my reservations:
- iTunes should be strictly music. iTube or iFilm or iMovies or iVideo or Apple Movie Store should be a separate application; or else name it iMedia and completely rethink the interface. I find that since the addition of video podcasts and TV shows, iTunes is getting really difficult to keep tidy and organized, even with features like smart playlists and a 20" screen. It looks like a big, sloppy mass of text.
- The price should be $11.99 - 9.99 for new movies, $9.99 - 7.99 for older ones, and an iPod version should be thrown in with the full-quality feature. Any more than that and I'll just buy and rip the DVD or, more likely, just download it elsewhere. This pricing structure is not going to happen, I know, and so I'm already less than thrilled.
- The wireless Mac-to-TV bridge has to be really cool and effortlessly simple (and PC compatible too). This proposed "TubePort" USB dongle sounds like the most likely solution for a cross-platform device, but I'm hoping that the AirPort in all its various incarnations (Express, Extreme) will get a revamp and allow for video streaming somehow.
- A true video iPod needs to come soon. As in, before Christmas. And I really don't think we're going to see it today.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I don't know if the event will live up to the hype. That seems to be Apple's nagging problem lately.
Glad to hear someone else bring up the iTunes interface. I've never understood why the Videos group has a different organizing structure than everything else, or why it's so rigid. I also hate having Podcasts mixed in with my music.
Apple's been trying to integrate the various media pieces it's been developing, but the "branding" guys got control of the decisions. They're trying to leverage the iPod and iTunes too much because they're recognizable. Why do my photos get sync'd to my iPod through iTunes?
I probably won't even throw down $10 for a downloaded movie with those kinds of restrictions. I think the industry is holding out for HD discs to reassert their DRM power, and they're too intent on locking everything down. Not useful and no fun. Digital is beautiful because it's flexible-- take the flexibility away and it's just another bunch of fragile, valuable data on my hard drive. I'll take the disc, and continue spreading my money among all the middlemen...
If Apple does set up the video store this way, it's going to flop. There's no incentive to consumers... No price break, and bandwidth limits the ease of use. If playing the file, or adjusting attributes messes with the meta-data then it's going to choke Time Machine. My biggest concern is that a failing movie store will kill Apple's momentum and the music store and iPod will suffer as well.
Apple could make this all worthwhile by offering foreign films everywhere. I'd buy foreign films for download if they weren't released in the US any other way. Maybe by distributing independent films they could convince the music industry to follow suit.
Why a USB dongle unless they're hoping to open up to the low end Windows folks? USB is the *worst* interface for streaming video-- it's a peripheral interface, not a streaming interface... It hides its inefficiency with bandwidth for now, but once people start using it for hard drives, and iPods, and video streaming and TV hookups and everything else it's going to fall over. A FireWire dongle would do the job much more cleanly.
I covet a new full screen iPod, even though my 5G is only a year or so old. Something about full screen just seems right. If they go that way, I'd hope they boost capacity too-- 60GB isn't enough to hold everything I've got and more video to boot.
I'm a little suspicious of the idea that we'll be seeing a run of new consumer products. Apple doesn't work that way-- they don't have the resources to develop a bunch of new, great stuff in parallel. We haven't seen much lately because they've been focused on new, redesigned iPods. Maybe they'll throw out a video streaming peripheral. Then there'll be another wait and possibly something else.
twoodcc
May 4, 09:28 PM
yeah, -smp 12 but one core now shows minimal use. Before I restarted it it showed 4 cores with minimal usage... :confused: I'm going to try tossing the config file and see what happens. And of course it loses the wu each time I shut folding down.
oh ok. man that stinks. it losing the unit even when pressing control-c?
hmm. i'm not sure. but keep us posted on how it's going
oh ok. man that stinks. it losing the unit even when pressing control-c?
hmm. i'm not sure. but keep us posted on how it's going
pyre
Jan 15, 01:50 PM
MBAir is too expensive. I was looking for something from Apple to be around the price point I can get a ThinkPad X61 from Lenovo.
It's nice that it fits in an envelope, but that just makes me think it could be too easily damaged traveling in a bag everyday (e.g. too thin).
I like the weight though. It's too bad that Apple couldn't get the MacBooks to be in the weight range.
I can understand why Apple has it in that price range though. You are paying for the smaller Core 2 Duo and the size. They are eyeing the laptops like the Sony's and the Panasonic's. Those are priced in this range too.
It's nice that it fits in an envelope, but that just makes me think it could be too easily damaged traveling in a bag everyday (e.g. too thin).
I like the weight though. It's too bad that Apple couldn't get the MacBooks to be in the weight range.
I can understand why Apple has it in that price range though. You are paying for the smaller Core 2 Duo and the size. They are eyeing the laptops like the Sony's and the Panasonic's. Those are priced in this range too.
Sesshi
Oct 10, 03:41 PM
I doubt it'll be necessary, given the Pavlovian nature of most failed wannabe tech journalists - aka bloggers for Engadget and Gizmodo, and staff writers for Computerworld for starters - to drool on command when Apple is mentioned
SevenInchScrew
Apr 24, 10:44 AM
What trolls? If you're on about *LTD* here, he is entitled to his opinion, and whereas our opinions differ, it does not mean he is a troll.
Their opinions aren't what bothers me. People are free to have whatever opinion they like. But when they constantly come into threads with no intention of discussing the topic at hand, only to remind us of what their opinion is for favorite brand, that is troublesome, and behavior that does NOT need defending. But hey, that's just MY opinion.
Their opinions aren't what bothers me. People are free to have whatever opinion they like. But when they constantly come into threads with no intention of discussing the topic at hand, only to remind us of what their opinion is for favorite brand, that is troublesome, and behavior that does NOT need defending. But hey, that's just MY opinion.
SchneiderMan
Apr 11, 12:25 AM
Purchased Witnes. So far it works flawlessly! Gives me a little piece of mind when I'm not at home.
http://www.orbicule.com/images/Banner_Witness1.png
http://www.orbicule.com/images/Banner_Witness1.png
