Lepton
Jul 18, 04:52 PM
Apple wants to sell movies for $9.99, the studios say no, because they are greedy. Let's rent them for (I'll guess) $1.99 per view! Or (I'll guess) unlimited movies for $19.99 per month! That way, we get big bucks!
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
WeegieMac
Mar 31, 02:47 AM
Do Folders in Launchpad open/close smoothly now?
The animation was very juddery in the first build, like it skipped animation frames.
The animation was very juddery in the first build, like it skipped animation frames.
Lollypop
Aug 7, 04:26 AM
Interesting read but im not sure about system wide Software update. It could be like opening a can of worms - although it wont smell and have soil on it, it could become a weakpoint for hackers/viruses etc. :(
If done the right way I dont see how it could be a problem. For one, the user has to explicitly add the 3rd party product, apple could also act as a intermediary or something, the update will only become available through software update once apple has tested it (can download it youself when released), and even though the update comes from the 3rd parties webserver the hash is stored on apples servers and the update HAS to be verified and compared to the hash.
edit: spelling
If done the right way I dont see how it could be a problem. For one, the user has to explicitly add the 3rd party product, apple could also act as a intermediary or something, the update will only become available through software update once apple has tested it (can download it youself when released), and even though the update comes from the 3rd parties webserver the hash is stored on apples servers and the update HAS to be verified and compared to the hash.
edit: spelling
SciFrog
Dec 1, 12:49 PM
thanks! i hope so.
and congrats to you, whiterabbit, for hitting 3 million!
And congrats on the #7 spot, you crushed me... I should reclaim it in a month or so...
and congrats to you, whiterabbit, for hitting 3 million!
And congrats on the #7 spot, you crushed me... I should reclaim it in a month or so...
Doctor Q
Nov 27, 02:03 PM
The advantage for Apple in having a 17" widescreen monitor would be that nobody (well, almost nobody in the market for a monitor) would be priced out of the choice to buy an Apple-branded one.
There will also be competing monitors at lower prices from other companies, but many people will opt to buy an Apple monitor to go with their Mac, from Mac mini to Mac Pro.
There will also be competing monitors at lower prices from other companies, but many people will opt to buy an Apple monitor to go with their Mac, from Mac mini to Mac Pro.
JDMFSeanP
Jan 2, 05:10 PM
http://i.min.us/idSwVK.png
Hybrid hunting in the 240 on the mountain roads :]
Hybrid hunting in the 240 on the mountain roads :]
fun173
Jan 2, 07:40 PM
I need to get the 07 STI rims mounted once the winter season is over.
'97 Subaru svx lsi
'97 Subaru svx lsi
mrjain
Jan 12, 12:47 AM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
jgould
Feb 21, 04:02 PM
Anyway, on topic, setup. The Macbook is nearing retirement. Bonus points if you know what film that is on the screen (I just did an analysis of the score for my Film Music class at Uni).
No idea what film that is, but I do spy Handbrake on the MacBook, which looks identical to the one that I just retired. My optical drive in that machine was starting to go, I think. Only thing I've used the one in the new MacBook Pro for is to reinstall the OS after I got it...
No idea what film that is, but I do spy Handbrake on the MacBook, which looks identical to the one that I just retired. My optical drive in that machine was starting to go, I think. Only thing I've used the one in the new MacBook Pro for is to reinstall the OS after I got it...
jgould
Feb 20, 03:05 PM
I picked up a 13.3" MacBook Pro this morning, and this is the current setup before I move the Mini back to the corner that it lived in before and grab it's monitor for the MBP...
jtmx29
Jan 10, 12:17 PM
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k256/JTM29/IMG_0367.jpg?t=1294683410
1991 Honda Accord LX. Nothing pretty, but she gets the job done.
1991 Honda Accord LX. Nothing pretty, but she gets the job done.
emotion
Nov 27, 02:31 PM
Reasons why this isn't a good idea:
1. Too small, you can get 19 inch widescreen monitors for �130 upward these days. The market for the Apple 17" is that market. I'd believe a 19inch rumour though. The 20" ACD is pro, maybe release a 19" in black or white for macbook/mac mini owners?
2. Digitimes? Page 3 rumours.
And talking of matching accessories when is apple going to release keyboards that are up to date? Their current offering look as out of date as the bondi blue imac. Euw (I know this is off-topic for the thread but the rumour is bogus anyway :) ).
1. Too small, you can get 19 inch widescreen monitors for �130 upward these days. The market for the Apple 17" is that market. I'd believe a 19inch rumour though. The 20" ACD is pro, maybe release a 19" in black or white for macbook/mac mini owners?
2. Digitimes? Page 3 rumours.
And talking of matching accessories when is apple going to release keyboards that are up to date? Their current offering look as out of date as the bondi blue imac. Euw (I know this is off-topic for the thread but the rumour is bogus anyway :) ).
Tonsko
Jan 6, 05:36 PM
Heh. I used to use 98/99 until about a year ago. Fuel is just too expensive now. I know my golf's ECU adjusts the timing automatically depending on what octane level the fuel is. It shouldn't really matter.
brianus
Sep 1, 01:05 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
I completely agree with you that using Conroe would make more sense (the casing for the 17" and 20" models was originally designer for a G5, for pete's sake), but I disagree with the assumption that Conroe will *have* to be used in some way in Apple's lineup. Nobody's putting a gun to their head; they may well skip that processor entirely, as AppleInsider has suggested.
They may be responding to positive reviews and customer satisfaction with the relative silence of the Yonah iMacs compared to their G5 predecessors. I don't know how much hotter and louder an iMac would run with Conroe, but if it was noisy it would be a disappointment, as all the other desktop models they've released this year have been noticeably quieter.
Of course they won't offer it in aluminum, sheesh. Aluminum is the "pro" color, white and black are the "consumer" colors. Sheesh! Thought you people followed Apple.. anybody think they'll offer a "premium" black 23", same as they did for the higher-end MacBook? They are after all "siblings" in the product lineup.
Lastly I don't see them getting rid of the "chin" unless they come out with the rumored touch-screen, widescreen video iPods on the 12th too. I think the visual similarity between the iPod and iMac is quite intentional and not something they're likely to change unless the iPod itself changes.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
I completely agree with you that using Conroe would make more sense (the casing for the 17" and 20" models was originally designer for a G5, for pete's sake), but I disagree with the assumption that Conroe will *have* to be used in some way in Apple's lineup. Nobody's putting a gun to their head; they may well skip that processor entirely, as AppleInsider has suggested.
They may be responding to positive reviews and customer satisfaction with the relative silence of the Yonah iMacs compared to their G5 predecessors. I don't know how much hotter and louder an iMac would run with Conroe, but if it was noisy it would be a disappointment, as all the other desktop models they've released this year have been noticeably quieter.
Of course they won't offer it in aluminum, sheesh. Aluminum is the "pro" color, white and black are the "consumer" colors. Sheesh! Thought you people followed Apple.. anybody think they'll offer a "premium" black 23", same as they did for the higher-end MacBook? They are after all "siblings" in the product lineup.
Lastly I don't see them getting rid of the "chin" unless they come out with the rumored touch-screen, widescreen video iPods on the 12th too. I think the visual similarity between the iPod and iMac is quite intentional and not something they're likely to change unless the iPod itself changes.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 10:28 AM
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Meltdownblitz
Feb 8, 04:07 AM
2008 Infiniti G37S
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02896.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02938.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02896.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/xedgewaterx/G37%20iForged%20Wheels%20Posting/DSC02938.jpg
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 04:39 PM
I see people here still digging up the old WORD and WINDOWS argument that gets debunked every damn time someone brings it up.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
res1233
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
Yawn...'cause if it ain't kludgy, it ain't pro.
Some people seem to think that difficult to use = pro. Those are the people use windows because they enjoy fixing problems. Anything to save time is good for anyone, pro or not, and this interface feels like one that wont take much time to get used to. It looks well designed.
Some people seem to think that difficult to use = pro. Those are the people use windows because they enjoy fixing problems. Anything to save time is good for anyone, pro or not, and this interface feels like one that wont take much time to get used to. It looks well designed.
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 01:44 PM
I am still really surprised that it seems as if nobody else has had the greyed-out toolbar in fullscreen Safari bug that I've got. Has anyone heard or read something that I haven't? I am much more looking forward to the next preview/beta build now, it suffices to say. ;)
OrganMusic
Apr 11, 10:10 PM
I've driven a friends Passat with DSG and it's better than a conventional automatic, but still meh as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it's faster to 60 and more efficient but I don't care.
My reasons for preferring manual are:
1. Engine always feels connected to the wheels. Yes the DSG helps with this.
2. I'm always conscious of what gear I'm in without having to look down at the indicator.
3. In an AT car when driving around town (~35-40 mph) in full auto mode, it's going to be in top gear so any time you want to speed up even a little you have to give it more gas, then wait for it to decide to downshift before you get any response. And if you've given it enough gas to do that it usually slams into the new gear and you get a jerk instead of a nice smooth pull.
4. Manual shift paddles can help with this, but now you've got to drive in manual mode all the time which I find a PITA (see #2). No easy access to N for coasting etc.
5. Just feel more connected to the machine.
I even got my wife to like manual when she was driving my old Mazda3 while her car was in the shop. We now own two MINIs both in 6-speed manual.
I drive in Chicago traffic all the time and in fact hate having to stand on the brake in an AT all the time. The clutches in most smaller cars (e.g. our MINIs) are light enough it's really not that much work.
My reasons for preferring manual are:
1. Engine always feels connected to the wheels. Yes the DSG helps with this.
2. I'm always conscious of what gear I'm in without having to look down at the indicator.
3. In an AT car when driving around town (~35-40 mph) in full auto mode, it's going to be in top gear so any time you want to speed up even a little you have to give it more gas, then wait for it to decide to downshift before you get any response. And if you've given it enough gas to do that it usually slams into the new gear and you get a jerk instead of a nice smooth pull.
4. Manual shift paddles can help with this, but now you've got to drive in manual mode all the time which I find a PITA (see #2). No easy access to N for coasting etc.
5. Just feel more connected to the machine.
I even got my wife to like manual when she was driving my old Mazda3 while her car was in the shop. We now own two MINIs both in 6-speed manual.
I drive in Chicago traffic all the time and in fact hate having to stand on the brake in an AT all the time. The clutches in most smaller cars (e.g. our MINIs) are light enough it's really not that much work.
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:18 PM
as the other guys have said, in the UK automatics are pretty rare. i think we all know one friend or so who has an Auto only license, everyone else just gets a normal license.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
When is the last time you were in an automatic and what year/make/model was the car?
Automatics these days are generally a LOT better than they used to be. This is coming from someone who really loves driving a stick on country roads and likes the control you get from one.
I'm starting to think most stick drivers are blind to how much automatics have changed.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
When is the last time you were in an automatic and what year/make/model was the car?
Automatics these days are generally a LOT better than they used to be. This is coming from someone who really loves driving a stick on country roads and likes the control you get from one.
I'm starting to think most stick drivers are blind to how much automatics have changed.
jafd
Mar 24, 05:44 AM
The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.
DMann
Aug 6, 08:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/) will provide live coverage of the event starting at 1PM EST (10AM Pacific). No need to reload the page, updates will appear as they are posted. In January, our system successfully delivered updates to over 100,000 (http://www.macrumors.com/events/mwsf2006-stats.php) simultaneous visitors.
More photos of banners posted at WWDC have been circulating. Apple appears to be taking on Microsoft's upcoming Vista operating system directly with banners that state:
"Mac OS X Leopard, Introducing Vista 2.0" (photo (http://static.flickr.com/74/207241438_7c0f89412d_b.jpg))
"Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista"
In the meanwhile, you can read the WWDC 2006 Rumor Roundup (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060805162310.shtml), see our WWDC related Guide Pages (http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:WWDC_2006), chat in our IRC channel (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030608214842.shtml) or participate in the forums (http://forums.macrumors.com).
We will continue to provide any last minute updates leading to the event.
Perhaps MS will change the name a third time before it is released.
MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/) will provide live coverage of the event starting at 1PM EST (10AM Pacific). No need to reload the page, updates will appear as they are posted. In January, our system successfully delivered updates to over 100,000 (http://www.macrumors.com/events/mwsf2006-stats.php) simultaneous visitors.
More photos of banners posted at WWDC have been circulating. Apple appears to be taking on Microsoft's upcoming Vista operating system directly with banners that state:
"Mac OS X Leopard, Introducing Vista 2.0" (photo (http://static.flickr.com/74/207241438_7c0f89412d_b.jpg))
"Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista"
In the meanwhile, you can read the WWDC 2006 Rumor Roundup (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060805162310.shtml), see our WWDC related Guide Pages (http://guides.macrumors.com/Category:WWDC_2006), chat in our IRC channel (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030608214842.shtml) or participate in the forums (http://forums.macrumors.com).
We will continue to provide any last minute updates leading to the event.
Perhaps MS will change the name a third time before it is released.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 10:32 AM
So what are your thoughts? Should Apple have rejected the app?
I don't think that apple should be in the business of approving apps.
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
I don't think that apple should be in the business of approving apps.
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
No comments:
Post a Comment