Rend It
Aug 5, 06:07 PM
snippet
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
iliketyla
Mar 31, 08:21 PM
Has LTD ever posted anything not pro-Apple?
I'll give it to you dude, you're very articulate and you have a way of spinning things to sound like you're right, but you are blatantly against anything that encourages competition or threatens Apple in any way.
I'll give it to you dude, you're very articulate and you have a way of spinning things to sound like you're right, but you are blatantly against anything that encourages competition or threatens Apple in any way.
z4n3
Apr 25, 03:55 PM
My PERSONAL view!
I think this is all just media hype, if people were to think about this a little bit and put the Apple aside maybe there would not be so many rants on this thread.
We are all tracked every day! by the Telcos, credit card companies, ATM`s, immigration and customs, Airlines, etc. etc.
The only real people that this should bother are criminals, and you know that no criminal has a mobile phone in his real name or on his person, not even satellite phones.. as mobile phones have always been able to be tracked via the telcos cell towers! so this is nothing new, just because it has the magic letter "i" before it iTrackU is kicking up a storm, but as the saying goes all publicity is good publicity, and nobody can trump Apple on this front. I for one could not give a rats A*** what they do with my GPS coordinates, as the Tax office, My telco companies, and Bank have more details on me that what this file has.
I think this is all just media hype, if people were to think about this a little bit and put the Apple aside maybe there would not be so many rants on this thread.
We are all tracked every day! by the Telcos, credit card companies, ATM`s, immigration and customs, Airlines, etc. etc.
The only real people that this should bother are criminals, and you know that no criminal has a mobile phone in his real name or on his person, not even satellite phones.. as mobile phones have always been able to be tracked via the telcos cell towers! so this is nothing new, just because it has the magic letter "i" before it iTrackU is kicking up a storm, but as the saying goes all publicity is good publicity, and nobody can trump Apple on this front. I for one could not give a rats A*** what they do with my GPS coordinates, as the Tax office, My telco companies, and Bank have more details on me that what this file has.
err404
Apr 25, 02:31 PM
Obviously this IS an issue; just not a very big one. Considering the low quality of the data and the nature if what is stored, it is not well suited for tracking user whereabouts with any level of confidence.
Apple does need to address this, but I don't see any malicious intent. The data serves a valuable function for the user and is not collected by Apple.
Apple does need to address this, but I don't see any malicious intent. The data serves a valuable function for the user and is not collected by Apple.
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 05:59 PM
Whaaaat?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:42 AM
Poor Paranoid Apple :)
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 06:03 PM
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
rovex
Apr 11, 02:30 PM
Does Arn write every single article on this forum?
zacman
Apr 20, 03:46 AM
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
No, it was shown at IFA 2006 for the first time but "officially presented" a few months later.
No, it was shown at IFA 2006 for the first time but "officially presented" a few months later.
Silentwave
Aug 20, 12:54 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
shelterpaw
Aug 7, 03:54 PM
i love the changes they made.
now if only they can merge ical into mail so it can fully compete against entourage and other apps.
I want my full telephone book, contact data management, with calendar in one program.
easier for me that way.
Yeah, that'd be cool. Just imagine if you could grab certain things from other apps, like that widget web clip feature and paste together your own app in whichever way you please. Would probably confuse the heck out of some novice users, but would be great for advanced users. Elastic applications.
now if only they can merge ical into mail so it can fully compete against entourage and other apps.
I want my full telephone book, contact data management, with calendar in one program.
easier for me that way.
Yeah, that'd be cool. Just imagine if you could grab certain things from other apps, like that widget web clip feature and paste together your own app in whichever way you please. Would probably confuse the heck out of some novice users, but would be great for advanced users. Elastic applications.
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 02:58 PM
What do you mean "if"? (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/)
Thank you. I was trying to find that. :)
Thank you. I was trying to find that. :)
Tomaz
Aug 7, 05:22 PM
APPLE!? Arrogant??? Naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.
And how do you know you guys are going to hate it? You never even used it yet. My God some of you people are such complainers. Put some dirt on it, make a hill, and get over it.
I'm sure I'm not going to hate it, it's probably gonna be fabulous, but it's not an innovation as Steve advertises it. In fact, not a single thing they showed about Leopard up to now is an innovation. Everything already exists somehow. I'm not complaining about the new features of the OS, but about how they present them. They're all (hopefully) improved versions of existing stuff!!
And how do you know you guys are going to hate it? You never even used it yet. My God some of you people are such complainers. Put some dirt on it, make a hill, and get over it.
I'm sure I'm not going to hate it, it's probably gonna be fabulous, but it's not an innovation as Steve advertises it. In fact, not a single thing they showed about Leopard up to now is an innovation. Everything already exists somehow. I'm not complaining about the new features of the OS, but about how they present them. They're all (hopefully) improved versions of existing stuff!!
rdowns
Apr 27, 04:41 PM
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gif
Link (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/franklin-graham-obama-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy-theory)
The evangelical son of one of America's most famous evangelists says that President Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions.
In an interview last week with Newsmax.com, a conservative website (that pushes the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya conspiracy theory), [see clarification at the end of the article] Franklin Graham, an evangelist like his father, Billy Graham, claimed that the fundamentalist Islamic political group has burrowed into the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy. Sounding a bit like Glenn Beck, Graham explained:
The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active in our country. It's infiltrated every level of our government. Right now we have many of these people that are advising the US military and State Department on how to respond in the Middle East, and it's like asking a fox, like a farmer asking a fox, "How do I protect my henhouse from foxes?" We've brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries. And many of these people we've brought in, I'm afraid, are under the Muslim Brotherhood.
Link (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/franklin-graham-obama-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy-theory)
The evangelical son of one of America's most famous evangelists says that President Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions.
In an interview last week with Newsmax.com, a conservative website (that pushes the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya conspiracy theory), [see clarification at the end of the article] Franklin Graham, an evangelist like his father, Billy Graham, claimed that the fundamentalist Islamic political group has burrowed into the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy. Sounding a bit like Glenn Beck, Graham explained:
The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active in our country. It's infiltrated every level of our government. Right now we have many of these people that are advising the US military and State Department on how to respond in the Middle East, and it's like asking a fox, like a farmer asking a fox, "How do I protect my henhouse from foxes?" We've brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries. And many of these people we've brought in, I'm afraid, are under the Muslim Brotherhood.
SandboxGeneral
Apr 11, 11:25 AM
Well that would fit nicely into the convergence of the ATT & VZW product launching at the same time, rather than two different phones and launch dates.
Macsterguy
Apr 27, 08:19 AM
So track me... I'm not ashamed of where I go...
We are giving up our rights just by typing in this forum on the "World Wide Web" because it is World Wide...
This was all started by 2 paranoid people that need to throw away their technology and crawl into a cave with that guy with the long grey beard that is hiding from the world (until he gets caught)...
We are giving up our rights just by typing in this forum on the "World Wide Web" because it is World Wide...
This was all started by 2 paranoid people that need to throw away their technology and crawl into a cave with that guy with the long grey beard that is hiding from the world (until he gets caught)...
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 09:22 PM
May have been said, but ship dates on iMacs are 7-10 days.
Where do you see this? When I look at the Apple store it says ships in 1-2 days.
Where do you see this? When I look at the Apple store it says ships in 1-2 days.
FearlessFreep
Apr 11, 01:31 PM
I still don't get why people just don't follow the components to figure out the timing. If the touchscreen size is indeed going to change, then it has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity before launch. Otherwise you end up with not enough product in the pipeline to meet demand (see Ipad, 2).
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
skunk
Mar 1, 04:18 PM
Ah, let us define slavery, does: "slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person" work for you?No, not really. Why is this relevant?
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a manThey are not permitted to marry their chosen partner, so no, this is again complete bollocks.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogressRetrogress is a verb, and they were not retrograde, on the contrary they were very progressive in many respects.
In short, your cogency is significantly inferior to Lee's.
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a manThey are not permitted to marry their chosen partner, so no, this is again complete bollocks.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogressRetrogress is a verb, and they were not retrograde, on the contrary they were very progressive in many respects.
In short, your cogency is significantly inferior to Lee's.
OutThere
Apr 27, 01:29 PM
Don't jack up America for those of us who love it for what it was founded on.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
I don't know about you, but I love America because it was founded on stolen native land. Just makes me so proud of my forefathers, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
I don't know about you, but I love America because it was founded on stolen native land. Just makes me so proud of my forefathers, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
DocNo
Apr 11, 10:09 AM
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it. The importance of this is that he feels movie making is going the way of music making these days. He believes anything under 20 million is going to be funded independently, not released via movie studios and will sell the movies directly to the theaters.
He feels only the big blockbuster movies like Transformers and stuff will be left the studios, much like many musicians are skipping the record companies and making and releasing music themselves.
And as with the iPhone and iPad, if you are hopelessly behind in a traditional market (i.e. Mac OSX vs. Windows) go create a new one (i.e. iOS)! I have no doubt this is where Apple is going...
He feels only the big blockbuster movies like Transformers and stuff will be left the studios, much like many musicians are skipping the record companies and making and releasing music themselves.
And as with the iPhone and iPad, if you are hopelessly behind in a traditional market (i.e. Mac OSX vs. Windows) go create a new one (i.e. iOS)! I have no doubt this is where Apple is going...