dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:51 PM
HDMI has nothing to do with the down res of an image. The Image Constraint Token dictates whether HD will be transmitted over analog channels like component. The ICT has not been implemented by any studio and they have stated it is not likely to be in the near future.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 08:17 PM
Sorry for all the posts. I seem to have more opinions and questions than usual today.
Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?
I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?
iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.
Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?
I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?
iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:20 AM
Have fun!
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Eso
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
macUser2007
Feb 22, 05:37 PM
The iPhone is great, IMO.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:50 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subscribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
And in the meantime, Apple's selection of TV shows kinda blows. There are one or two that I like that are available, and 10 shows that I love that are completely missing. Until everything I might want to watch is available, there's no way I'm ditching my cable company, and this may never happen.
Television content providers and producers are beholden to advertisers, who need a medium to peddle their wares. These advertisers hate this Apple subscription model, which I'm guessing is one of the big reasons why the iTV doesn't have any DVR capabilities.
Those companies that distribute television and movies (like Apple et al.) -- that are in bed with the content providers, don't really support/sell DVRs -- with the possible exception of the cable & satellite companies themselves, who have monopoly-like power.
I'm sure TiVo would have loved to implement a movie store years ago but the content providers hate TiVo. As cynical as it sounds, the only way you're going to get all of the technological functionality that you want is if you build it yourself or tolerate advertisements.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
And in the meantime, Apple's selection of TV shows kinda blows. There are one or two that I like that are available, and 10 shows that I love that are completely missing. Until everything I might want to watch is available, there's no way I'm ditching my cable company, and this may never happen.
Television content providers and producers are beholden to advertisers, who need a medium to peddle their wares. These advertisers hate this Apple subscription model, which I'm guessing is one of the big reasons why the iTV doesn't have any DVR capabilities.
Those companies that distribute television and movies (like Apple et al.) -- that are in bed with the content providers, don't really support/sell DVRs -- with the possible exception of the cable & satellite companies themselves, who have monopoly-like power.
I'm sure TiVo would have loved to implement a movie store years ago but the content providers hate TiVo. As cynical as it sounds, the only way you're going to get all of the technological functionality that you want is if you build it yourself or tolerate advertisements.
mrelwood
Apr 20, 06:39 PM
Largest App store.
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
bedifferent
May 2, 04:18 PM
Bravo, this is the funniest post ever.
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
…and in come the Engadget trolls… ;)
Reality check is that I make 75% of my part-time communications and IT work from Windows based systems, fixing errors, virus removal, bloatware, instaling third party software such as mail, photo and calendar apps (Office), configuring their WLAN to work properly, et al.
My OS X work, mostly teaching people how to use OS X (Apple's One on One but without the noise and lack of experience from minimum wage "Creatives"). Funny how the switchers fall in love with OS X and never switch back to Windows.
Not knocking it, I got W7 on one of my 6-Core Mac Pro SATA bays and it runs amazingly. Of course, some of this is due to the hardware and drivers supplied by Apple, making it seamless as opposed to writing code for a myriad of hardware profiles…
Bottom line, both are good, but Windows would be better following Apple's lead in producing the hardware with the product, ensuring less compatibility issue and adopting EFI (Bios? REALLY?). Course this would mean millions of large businesses reinvesting in MS built hardware, and with MS's product quality/industrial design, I'm not betting on it...
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
…and in come the Engadget trolls… ;)
Reality check is that I make 75% of my part-time communications and IT work from Windows based systems, fixing errors, virus removal, bloatware, instaling third party software such as mail, photo and calendar apps (Office), configuring their WLAN to work properly, et al.
My OS X work, mostly teaching people how to use OS X (Apple's One on One but without the noise and lack of experience from minimum wage "Creatives"). Funny how the switchers fall in love with OS X and never switch back to Windows.
Not knocking it, I got W7 on one of my 6-Core Mac Pro SATA bays and it runs amazingly. Of course, some of this is due to the hardware and drivers supplied by Apple, making it seamless as opposed to writing code for a myriad of hardware profiles…
Bottom line, both are good, but Windows would be better following Apple's lead in producing the hardware with the product, ensuring less compatibility issue and adopting EFI (Bios? REALLY?). Course this would mean millions of large businesses reinvesting in MS built hardware, and with MS's product quality/industrial design, I'm not betting on it...
inkswamp
Oct 26, 03:49 AM
If history serves as a template for the future
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
phantomsd
Jun 19, 10:51 PM
Haven't experienced a dropped call yet... then again, I barely use my minutes.
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
MacQuest
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
JFreak
Jul 13, 02:11 AM
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:14 PM
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:39 PM
I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
javajedi
Oct 9, 09:34 PM
Alex, thank you for setting the record straight. I am so sick and tired of hearing the over and over highly fallacious arguments. In many ways these ppl are worse than Windows bigots. They *think* they are educated but aren't; at least Windows bigots don't pretend.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
~loserman~
Mar 18, 06:19 PM
Thats hilarious
I can't think of anything funnier than this except maybe when it happened to Real but then again this is still pretty funny.
I can't think of anything funnier than this except maybe when it happened to Real but then again this is still pretty funny.
retroneo
Oct 7, 08:29 PM
For example, every phone manufacturer is going to have their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. With the iPhone, you know exactly what is there and what the device you're targeting can do. You can build better applications to utilize the specific hardware.
Of the 6 iPhone OS devices so far released (still more than Android), each has their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. There is also an enourmous range of CPU and GPU ability. I think the only consistent thing so far has been the screen size and the fact that apps can only use touch and none of the buttons.
So there is a similar (smaller) problem that exists for developers on iPhone. It's unfortunately why Firemint say they won't release Real Racing 3GS too. Android tries to keep fragmentation to a minimum by running everything in a virtual machine but ultimately it has the same problem.
These aren't game consoles that are released once every 5 years.
Of the 6 iPhone OS devices so far released (still more than Android), each has their own set of features. Some may have cameras, vibration, video playback, etc. There is also an enourmous range of CPU and GPU ability. I think the only consistent thing so far has been the screen size and the fact that apps can only use touch and none of the buttons.
So there is a similar (smaller) problem that exists for developers on iPhone. It's unfortunately why Firemint say they won't release Real Racing 3GS too. Android tries to keep fragmentation to a minimum by running everything in a virtual machine but ultimately it has the same problem.
These aren't game consoles that are released once every 5 years.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:48 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
