needo
May 1, 03:11 AM
Crap... I just ordered a 27" iMac from store.apple.com Friday morning. It hasn't shipped yet as i did some custom changes. I am going to call in the morning to see if I can hopefully cancel the order. I also purchased a 27" Cinema Display but that has already shipped. And doesn't look like it is in this upgrade round.
gregorypierce
Apr 11, 02:28 AM
Unlikely - this would require the new private key be embedded in the firmware update package, which would defeat the purpose of replacing the old key.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
Indeed, because any company that tries to take advantage of that can almost certainly be sued by Apple with little issue.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
Indeed, because any company that tries to take advantage of that can almost certainly be sued by Apple with little issue.
vincenz
May 3, 11:28 AM
Gotta say, that 27" with dual ACDs is nice...
fblack
Sep 10, 02:35 PM
I agree with you (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here) but I would argue that in some ways, a 24" AIO is even worse than a 17"/20" AIO, due to the sizable (no pun intended) investment in the display. If your 17" iMac bites the big one, but the display is still fine, well, okay, you have to throw away a perfectly good 17" display. But they're fairly cheap these days, so whatever. However, what if something goes a year or so from now on your 24" iMac? For me at least, throwing away a perfectly good, high quality 24" display would really suck. :cool:
And that's one of the reasons I don't like all in ones, I dont like throwing away display no matter what the size. My last CRT lasted me about 6 years and I had an old apple 14" monitor that was still working after 10 years! Now that's getting value out of your components! :D
However, in regards to the longevity of a 24" apple might say hey buy apple care and be covered for those 3 years and "protect your investment". But maybe this is another issue that apple should address and that's their extended warranties. Perhaps you or others might feel more confident in a AIO solution if apple offered 4-5 year extended warranties?
Who knows they may surprise us yet with a headless imac/pro. But I think they have it set up like buying a car. You want those extra features? Then you have to pay for a higher priced model that has the features you want and dont want...;)
And that's one of the reasons I don't like all in ones, I dont like throwing away display no matter what the size. My last CRT lasted me about 6 years and I had an old apple 14" monitor that was still working after 10 years! Now that's getting value out of your components! :D
However, in regards to the longevity of a 24" apple might say hey buy apple care and be covered for those 3 years and "protect your investment". But maybe this is another issue that apple should address and that's their extended warranties. Perhaps you or others might feel more confident in a AIO solution if apple offered 4-5 year extended warranties?
Who knows they may surprise us yet with a headless imac/pro. But I think they have it set up like buying a car. You want those extra features? Then you have to pay for a higher priced model that has the features you want and dont want...;)
n-abounds
Sep 8, 02:44 PM
Right. You won't get the full 64 bit native benfits of Leopard without either a G5 or a Core 2 Duo processor.
It'll still run on a G4 just fine.
Yea thanks, I really have no idea what 64-bit and 32-bit is about...all I know is that Core Duo didn't support it...
Now I'm buying a new mac soon- thinking of going with 17inch iMac. Will a 128MB video card be enough for Vista to run perfectly? I want as many features as possible...
It'll still run on a G4 just fine.
Yea thanks, I really have no idea what 64-bit and 32-bit is about...all I know is that Core Duo didn't support it...
Now I'm buying a new mac soon- thinking of going with 17inch iMac. Will a 128MB video card be enough for Vista to run perfectly? I want as many features as possible...
farmermac
Mar 30, 11:22 AM
i love when big companies publicly fight like this. Dont really care about the actual issue, but the details are so interesting. The lawyers basically make it look like children are fighting.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:04 PM
After a bit of thought I think I'm siding with Apple... here's why:
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...
Nice try. But "app" and "application" have been synonymous for more than a decade. They have always been used interchangeably. "Ope System" and "Operating System" have not been used interchangeably.
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...
Nice try. But "app" and "application" have been synonymous for more than a decade. They have always been used interchangeably. "Ope System" and "Operating System" have not been used interchangeably.
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
Tomacorno
Mar 23, 05:00 PM
I hope this does not make it harder to get my app approved. iBurgle, tells you where all the squads are in a 3 mile radius.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 05:12 PM
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.Agreed. But I do love the new Shuffle and will probably buy one when they go refurb for $49 - assuming refurb means with a new battery.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.Agreed. But I do love the new Shuffle and will probably buy one when they go refurb for $49 - assuming refurb means with a new battery.
Winni
Apr 29, 07:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
If you compare their investment in R&D to what they manage to churn out, it's pretty sad.
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center. And unlike Apple, Microsoft -has- data center / server products that people WANT to use and that are years ahead of the pack (Sharepoint Portal Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Terminal Services, just to name a few) - and a LOT of their RD goes there.
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
If you compare their investment in R&D to what they manage to churn out, it's pretty sad.
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center. And unlike Apple, Microsoft -has- data center / server products that people WANT to use and that are years ahead of the pack (Sharepoint Portal Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Terminal Services, just to name a few) - and a LOT of their RD goes there.
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
manu chao
Apr 11, 10:01 AM
More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system".
Both financially and from a space and energy consumption point of view, an Apple TV or an Airport Express is a more efficient solution for this. Apple tends to support only the efficient and simple solutions, not the cumbersome ones.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury?
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate. Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
for Earth Day 2011.
It was a film I created last Earth Day to inspire the kids at my school to use less trash. I am currently working on a sequel for this year#39;s Earth Day.
Aunt b leaderspresidents day
Valentine#39;s Day Activities For
Both financially and from a space and energy consumption point of view, an Apple TV or an Airport Express is a more efficient solution for this. Apple tends to support only the efficient and simple solutions, not the cumbersome ones.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury?
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate. Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
spicyapple
Sep 19, 01:31 PM
Wow. Good news for Apple and the future of the iTS in getting more studios on board. :)
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
Ankit1088
Apr 25, 12:52 PM
Liquid-metal!!!
SuperCachetes
Dec 31, 05:16 AM
Obviously McAfee has a vested interest is spewing "fear FUD" such as this. :rolleyes:
Last month I finally ditched that buggy junk from my Win7 installs. Got tired of having to reinstall it all the time. The auto-renewal scheme was an annoying little booby-trap as well. Good riddance.
Last month I finally ditched that buggy junk from my Win7 installs. Got tired of having to reinstall it all the time. The auto-renewal scheme was an annoying little booby-trap as well. Good riddance.
Jason Beck
Jan 11, 05:21 PM
Windows user here for at least a decade. This is obviously propaganda to promote some sort of upcoming suite of software for OSX to prevent "viruses" lol. Yawn. I am right now on my Windows box as I don't have a Mac at the moment but I have owned several. The only way your Mac can be infected with anything is through stupidity.
Indoor Fall Activities for
KINDERGARTEN EARTH DAY
Valentine#39;s Day Activities For
Activities for School Holidays
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 15, 06:26 PM
This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Apple will most likely buy a platform from a manufacturer like SonyEricsson. That doesnt mean it will look or feel like a SonyEricsson. LG has bought platforms from SE and they differ quite a lot from SE's phones.
Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Apple will most likely buy a platform from a manufacturer like SonyEricsson. That doesnt mean it will look or feel like a SonyEricsson. LG has bought platforms from SE and they differ quite a lot from SE's phones.
prady16
Sep 5, 07:19 AM
I really wish the media device rumor is true, but i would highly doubt that Apple would bring out the successor to the iPod this early. May be it is a pilot program like the Rockr phone for music on cell phones that Apple wants to experiment with by throwing a media streaming device in the market!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
spicyapple
Sep 12, 02:08 PM
80GB iPod seems like the only model with good value/price ratio. :D The home sync feature is an especially nice touch, something people predicted since the 2G iPods.
guzhogi
Aug 23, 06:26 PM
I hope this means that Creative would port its Soundblaster X-Fi to Macs. I'm sure this would help bring game developers, too.
ValSalva
Apr 30, 01:47 PM
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3.
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
Joshuarocks
Apr 11, 01:20 PM
I see how my post wasn't commented on, because it is the TRUTH. Just my point that most of you people are so blind to the corporate media.
LarryC
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
I do know that USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt are really great, but it bothers me that Apple seems to be abandoning Firewire. I always thought of Firewire as an apple technology. I've read that there are now Firewire 1600 and 3200 technologies.
I do hope that Apple will adopt the new USB standard. I see USB as being much more useful for average users than Thunderbolt. I was really surprised years ago when I found that my new iPod was unable to use the Firewire cable that my first iPod used.
I do hope that Apple will adopt the new USB standard. I see USB as being much more useful for average users than Thunderbolt. I was really surprised years ago when I found that my new iPod was unable to use the Firewire cable that my first iPod used.
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
Manic Mouse
Sep 13, 06:48 AM
A stop-gap update to keep iPod sales flowing, while they work on the real update, if I ever saw one: Minor and irrelvant upgrades, price lowered.
The "true" video-iPod will be here within 6 months.
The "true" video-iPod will be here within 6 months.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder