Westacular
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
Why don't they just use existing standards? RTSP, H.264/MPEG4 video and bonjour. There. No licensing required.
But no.
Apple pulls the "standards compliant" flag out of their asses only when it suits them. Boo.
Umm. You almost did just describe AirPlay. It *is* based on Bonjour and H.264/MPEG4 video.
For control and transport they didn't go with RTSP+RTP -- which has limitations around firewalls, proxies, CDNs, and more importantly, encryption/DRM -- and instead used HTTP Live Streaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), which Apple openly submitted to the IETF a couple years ago, and has been undergoing standardization since.
And that's most of what there is to it. The only novel stuff is in the way Bonjour is used for this, and that was easily reverse engineered, which is how you now have software like AirPlayer (for OS X) and AirViewer (for iOS) which act as Apple TV-like AirPlay displays.
... But only for DRM-free videos. Anything that's wrapped in Fairplay (iTunes' DRM) can, as always, only be played back by official Apple-sanctioned software/devices.
But no.
Apple pulls the "standards compliant" flag out of their asses only when it suits them. Boo.
Umm. You almost did just describe AirPlay. It *is* based on Bonjour and H.264/MPEG4 video.
For control and transport they didn't go with RTSP+RTP -- which has limitations around firewalls, proxies, CDNs, and more importantly, encryption/DRM -- and instead used HTTP Live Streaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), which Apple openly submitted to the IETF a couple years ago, and has been undergoing standardization since.
And that's most of what there is to it. The only novel stuff is in the way Bonjour is used for this, and that was easily reverse engineered, which is how you now have software like AirPlayer (for OS X) and AirViewer (for iOS) which act as Apple TV-like AirPlay displays.
... But only for DRM-free videos. Anything that's wrapped in Fairplay (iTunes' DRM) can, as always, only be played back by official Apple-sanctioned software/devices.
Gem�tlichkeit
Mar 28, 09:08 AM
Please, please, please, please let them add Sandy Bridge to the MBA.
Hertog
Nov 14, 02:24 PM
As of today at 1800 GMT+1, Klm stated that they had preliminary talks but were no where near to closing the deal. source. www.nu.nl
I allready posted that, but everyone seems to be overlooking this fact (including you :P)
So, this time in bold:
People, one of the airlines mentoined has denied the deal, so it's not sure if it is true!
I allready posted that, but everyone seems to be overlooking this fact (including you :P)
So, this time in bold:
People, one of the airlines mentoined has denied the deal, so it's not sure if it is true!
MSchen01
Aug 14, 10:00 AM
Oh yea, that evidence is so convincing...sugar for flies, wow. It definitely still applies to humans and this situation as all metaphorical cliches are so undeniably true
more...
appleguy123
Dec 27, 07:17 PM
What type of fraudulent activity?
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 10:03 AM
It's real, but its old.
The folder implementation is old as the new one is taken over in Mac OS X Lion.
Expose maybe removed due to what, I don't know.
Maybe its coming, maybe its not. :|
The folder implementation is old as the new one is taken over in Mac OS X Lion.
Expose maybe removed due to what, I don't know.
Maybe its coming, maybe its not. :|
more...
bimmerkid
Oct 27, 06:02 PM
It feels a little bit like Microsoft Exchange minus the configurable email accounts via the server.
erck24
Apr 25, 11:40 PM
It's a Mid 2009 15" Macbook pro. I think it's the version of bootcamp, 3.0.4 but i can't find 3.1 or later on the apple site for some reason and all the other ones download in code; driving me drazy. I think the version of windows is either the original or 7.1. Any thoughts?
more...
IngerMan
May 1, 10:15 PM
Maybe try a re-start of the computer. :p Then give it one more go:D
Elbert C
Mar 19, 03:23 PM
$7.29 fixed until the next fuel barge arrives to rural AK later this summer.
more...
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
The Phazer
Nov 6, 05:50 AM
It'd be great news to have an Oyster card in the next iPhone...
Phazer
Phazer
more...
Dorkington
Apr 25, 09:08 AM
http://bit.ly/bvEVyU/
It should work if you do it this way...
It should work if you do it this way...
Sydde
Apr 12, 12:59 PM
racism is more or less tolerated against a majority (at least in the USA).
You mean Mestizos?
You mean Mestizos?
more...
mcmlxix
Apr 5, 03:17 PM
The bezel around the bottom looks hammered together or poorly photoshopped. Fail.
justflie
Nov 21, 04:36 PM
If they can get it to work, engineers around the world will love them forever. Heat is always such a huge waste in any machinery, from computers to pumps to anything. The cost and environmental savings would be great if this tech (or something like it) can be effectively applied over a broad range of machinery!
more...
gohanmzt
Mar 26, 07:03 PM
I wonder if the mexican was getting info to write his "ese"? :p
You made me spit out my afternoon coffee!!. I'm Mexican and I got a huge kick out of your post. Thanks for the laugh! :p
You made me spit out my afternoon coffee!!. I'm Mexican and I got a huge kick out of your post. Thanks for the laugh! :p
iansilv
Jun 15, 05:28 PM
More analyst idiots spouting off crap that anyone can guess at. There are probably more competent analysts in these forums then on wallstreet...
Full of Win
Nov 6, 05:09 AM
I'm waiting for the Mark of the Beast = RFID comments to begin.
Serious, there are several segments of the population out there that have objections to this type of technology. I don't know if Apple cares though.
Serious, there are several segments of the population out there that have objections to this type of technology. I don't know if Apple cares though.
pepitko
Apr 5, 03:59 PM
TBH, it looks like an iPhone with a cover that says iPod on the back, I say it's fake.
Compufix
Sep 21, 10:33 AM
Can anyone confirm that the update does not make the Mac Pro noisier?
In the past Apple has repeatedly upgraded fan speeds by these updates a couple of months AFTER all reviews had been written. I had once bought my Powerbook G4 (besides other aspects) because it was very quite. A few SMC updates later the fan was running continuously and as such probably lowering average temperatur and service return rate for Apple.
I did the firmware, the SMC was not needed, and no, the machine is not any louder for me.
In the past Apple has repeatedly upgraded fan speeds by these updates a couple of months AFTER all reviews had been written. I had once bought my Powerbook G4 (besides other aspects) because it was very quite. A few SMC updates later the fan was running continuously and as such probably lowering average temperatur and service return rate for Apple.
I did the firmware, the SMC was not needed, and no, the machine is not any louder for me.
simsaladimbamba
Apr 22, 07:01 PM
Wait, what ? :rolleyes:
It's a fake, that is clearly a Simson or maybe a Schwalbe, but definitely not an MZ.
I have to ask GGJstudios though, he claims to know mopeds.
It's a fake, that is clearly a Simson or maybe a Schwalbe, but definitely not an MZ.
I have to ask GGJstudios though, he claims to know mopeds.
Phantom Gremlin
Jan 14, 08:19 PM
I'm puzzled by why these apps all just tout iPhone compatibility. Why not also the iPad?
I have an iPad with 3G and the built-in map sucks (compared to my real Garmin Nuvi). I'd pay to have good navigation on it. So why the hate from Garmin?
I think I have the hardware, don't I? I can receive 3G data, which also means my iPad has GPS. Isn't that enough?
I have an iPad with 3G and the built-in map sucks (compared to my real Garmin Nuvi). I'd pay to have good navigation on it. So why the hate from Garmin?
I think I have the hardware, don't I? I can receive 3G data, which also means my iPad has GPS. Isn't that enough?
TXCraig
Jun 11, 09:53 AM
Why on earth did T-Mobile decide to build out a network that was so strange that no one else isues it and basically phones are going to have custom radios in them to work.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
