arn
Sep 12, 12:59 AM
Maybe, but to impact the market, you need a critical mass. Didn't iTMS have 200,000-300,000 songs when it opened?
Who else is? Anyway, my point was more that if Disney is all the iTunes Movie Store has to offer, it will look like a huge marketing failure, and the media will feed on it... If it's true, expect predictions of Apple's pending demise on Wednesday...
Variety first reported it
http://www.variety.com/VR1117949519.html
Who else is? Anyway, my point was more that if Disney is all the iTunes Movie Store has to offer, it will look like a huge marketing failure, and the media will feed on it... If it's true, expect predictions of Apple's pending demise on Wednesday...
Variety first reported it
http://www.variety.com/VR1117949519.html
Ace134blue
Mar 17, 11:16 PM
Thats jealousy. If it were me, id just say "Bitch please" and walk away
Retrosonic
Dec 18, 08:15 PM
Super interesting thread here. Very enjoyable reading, at least for most of the messages. (except for the ditzo who cant see why Apple would have two seperate iphone upgrade dates, one in Jan and one in June.....it makes complete business sense).
The minute I saw Verizons announcement out of nowhere about rolling out the LTE network in 1/3 of the country on Dec 5, my ears went up. I mean why do that if there isnt something following it soon after? It sure SEEMs like they are "setting the table" for something.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I just really hope the Verizon Iphone is available in White from Day One. The white is sharp looking.
The minute I saw Verizons announcement out of nowhere about rolling out the LTE network in 1/3 of the country on Dec 5, my ears went up. I mean why do that if there isnt something following it soon after? It sure SEEMs like they are "setting the table" for something.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I just really hope the Verizon Iphone is available in White from Day One. The white is sharp looking.
BJNY
Jan 14, 12:37 PM
My computers dedicated for pro digital photography don't require more than ~5GB for the OS and apps, so that would leave 25GB for RAW data. 64SSD would certainly give more breathing room since most sessions are 20GB to 50GB.
thejadedmonkey
Oct 11, 01:21 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
plinden
Oct 19, 10:31 AM
Although it's not spelled out, Gartner estimate 59 million computers were sold worldwide last quarter. Apple says they sold 1.6 million, so that makes 2.7%. This is up from 2.2% (1.2 million out of 55 million) last quarter.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
NebulaClash
May 3, 08:07 AM
Believe what you will. I have a MBP with gestures and I find some useful and some annoying. I can do fine artwork with a mouse and Photoshop (stylus is even more useful), but I can't do it with a piddly trackpad. I would not want to play 3D shooter games with a trackpad either. In other words, trackpads have their uses and are getting better for some tasks with gestures, but they're not the answer to life, the universe and everything either. Every task has its ideal tool. You don't throw out hand tools because air tools are available. They're unsuited for many tasks (particularly delicate ones).
You gave more details, but that's precisely my point. There will always be some uses for a mouse just as there are some uses for a chain saw. But just as most people won't need a chain saw in their daily lives, there is coming a point when most people won't have a need for a mouse in their daily lives. You want to use one for Photoshop? Keep using it. But most people do not use Photoshop, and that's my point.
We have been forced to use a mouse for *everything*, even when it was the worst option. Now we have direct hand gestures for when it makes sense. And we will have a mouse for when it makes sense for a mouse. My point is that most people will use gestures, while only certain specialized users will employ the mouse. Web surfing, email, media use, reading, many games, all of these things work *better* with gestures. That covers the majority of user's needs right there, and that's my point.
By 2020, mouse usage will be the minority.
You gave more details, but that's precisely my point. There will always be some uses for a mouse just as there are some uses for a chain saw. But just as most people won't need a chain saw in their daily lives, there is coming a point when most people won't have a need for a mouse in their daily lives. You want to use one for Photoshop? Keep using it. But most people do not use Photoshop, and that's my point.
We have been forced to use a mouse for *everything*, even when it was the worst option. Now we have direct hand gestures for when it makes sense. And we will have a mouse for when it makes sense for a mouse. My point is that most people will use gestures, while only certain specialized users will employ the mouse. Web surfing, email, media use, reading, many games, all of these things work *better* with gestures. That covers the majority of user's needs right there, and that's my point.
By 2020, mouse usage will be the minority.
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 6, 07:18 PM
Apple makes what?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 17, 11:25 AM
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
Northgrove
Apr 29, 03:59 PM
rorschach: Thanks for the info! Good to hear that the lack of iOS-style scroll bars was a misreport. :)
I liked the lighter background color in the preferences more. :(
Especially since it didn't have to reverse the selected text color to white...
I liked the lighter background color in the preferences more. :(
Especially since it didn't have to reverse the selected text color to white...
hamlin
Nov 8, 03:11 PM
I pre-ordered it for PS3 from ebgames. I'll pick it up after work tomorrow.
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
Lancetx
Jan 12, 11:38 PM
There's an old saying that goes...it ain't bragging (or arrogant either for that matter) if you can do it. Well, Steve Jobs and Apple have proven time and time again that they can definitely do it.
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
840quadra
Jan 5, 09:29 AM
There is also no guarantee that the link will be active during the keynote (aka live) . I made the mistake of Digging WWDC 2006's QT link. It got to the front page, but it wasn't live..
I was :o
I was :o
satcomer
Apr 12, 03:59 PM
A cool poster:
http://astrogear.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/UniverseKills-gray1.png
link: Astrogear poster (http://astrogear.org/posters/poster-the-universe-is-trying-to-kill-you/)
http://astrogear.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/UniverseKills-gray1.png
link: Astrogear poster (http://astrogear.org/posters/poster-the-universe-is-trying-to-kill-you/)
whooleytoo
Mar 26, 02:42 PM
Maybe the people are stupid and have the system sitting in plain view and the cops will notice it when they try to question the neighbors.
Well, chances are if it's being used it could well just be sitting there by the living room TV!
Best of luck with this - any kind of theft like this would just drive me nuts.
Incidentally, you asked previously about Connect360's log - I don't know if it creates a separate log file, but you can certainly see log output in the Console, maybe that'll help.
Well, chances are if it's being used it could well just be sitting there by the living room TV!
Best of luck with this - any kind of theft like this would just drive me nuts.
Incidentally, you asked previously about Connect360's log - I don't know if it creates a separate log file, but you can certainly see log output in the Console, maybe that'll help.
Some_Big_Spoon
Nov 16, 12:46 PM
Well, no one said ditching.. I'm sure Apple's got their gear running on all sorts of things, just in case. Where Apple's machines are in the market, the Intel name and specs are far more valuable than AMD, no? Intel's got a fire under them now, and the sleeping giant's gathering steam, so while I'm sure Apple's got many plans, I can't see them expanding x86 suppliers for a long, long time..
But, then again, who wants to watch movies on a 3" screen? :-)
I can't see Apple ditching intel this early somehow.
But, then again, who wants to watch movies on a 3" screen? :-)
I can't see Apple ditching intel this early somehow.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 04:47 PM
Can't wait :)
vincenz
Mar 17, 09:00 AM
Did you check back to see if the kid is still working there?
JoeG4
Sep 25, 05:03 PM
*yawn* This is like as if MS made a press event only to announce a .1 update to IE. :confused:
WTF is so damn important about a .5 update of Aperture? If it's anything like iPhoto that's one program I wouldn't be spending $500 or whataever on. :D
WTF is so damn important about a .5 update of Aperture? If it's anything like iPhoto that's one program I wouldn't be spending $500 or whataever on. :D
steve_hill4
Sep 25, 01:17 PM
Damn then there must be something wrong with you Quad again Gary. I regularly use 1.1.2 on my 1.67 powerbook and I find it perfectly acceptable. And on my G5/X800XT it's super fast.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
I have to say that I find Aperture acceptable on the MBP, but I guess if you are someone like iGary who uses this kind of software a lot, you notice it more and more.
Hopefully the update will make a big difference in performance, especially when they now allow you to run it, whatever the (current) hardware you buy at the same time.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
I have to say that I find Aperture acceptable on the MBP, but I guess if you are someone like iGary who uses this kind of software a lot, you notice it more and more.
Hopefully the update will make a big difference in performance, especially when they now allow you to run it, whatever the (current) hardware you buy at the same time.
Knox
Jan 5, 03:24 PM
I wish they at least did that still. I mean, they offer a streaming video after the event, is it really so much more expensive to to offer it live?
Although the data transferred may be the same or more with on-demand streams, when it's live there will be much higher simultaneous usage. With high-end hosting in general, simultaneous usage is the killer and not really total bandwidth usage. With the popularity of Apple these days the number of simultaneous streams could be extremely high (I mean, if MacRumors gets 100,000 visitors simultaneously think what Apple would get themselves).
Although the data transferred may be the same or more with on-demand streams, when it's live there will be much higher simultaneous usage. With high-end hosting in general, simultaneous usage is the killer and not really total bandwidth usage. With the popularity of Apple these days the number of simultaneous streams could be extremely high (I mean, if MacRumors gets 100,000 visitors simultaneously think what Apple would get themselves).
lostprophet894
Apr 15, 04:10 PM
Volume rocker...
Good point. Forgot that it was supposed to be the casing rather than the whole thing.
What's the point of opening another thread?
Well I don't know about everybody else, but I don't bounce around from forum to forum. Most of the time I spend on MR is between here and the Community Discussion. If this thread wasn't opened I probably wouldn't have seen this.
Is it really that troublesome for you?
Good point. Forgot that it was supposed to be the casing rather than the whole thing.
What's the point of opening another thread?
Well I don't know about everybody else, but I don't bounce around from forum to forum. Most of the time I spend on MR is between here and the Community Discussion. If this thread wasn't opened I probably wouldn't have seen this.
Is it really that troublesome for you?
ChazUK
Apr 15, 05:07 PM
Why are record labels so against cloud based storage and access of music?
Until someone has a decent cloud offering in the uk, I can see myself sticking with Audiogalaxy for my own personal streaming needs.
Amazon may have jumped the gun a bit but I admire what they did either way.
I can't really agree with this. The last thing I want is a bunch of different places to buy music.
IF and only if the same same content was offered on both stores would this be a good thing in my opinion, otherwise its kind of like the Blu Ray vs HD DVD thing.
How is this comparable? Blu-ray and HD-DVD were completely incompatible with each other whereas the various online stores undoubtedly sell their music in an pod friendly format or face cutting off the biggest market for portable music players.
The main problem we used to have was drm incompatibilities but that is pretty much dead. What is the benefit of having a singular source controling the music market?
Until someone has a decent cloud offering in the uk, I can see myself sticking with Audiogalaxy for my own personal streaming needs.
Amazon may have jumped the gun a bit but I admire what they did either way.
I can't really agree with this. The last thing I want is a bunch of different places to buy music.
IF and only if the same same content was offered on both stores would this be a good thing in my opinion, otherwise its kind of like the Blu Ray vs HD DVD thing.
How is this comparable? Blu-ray and HD-DVD were completely incompatible with each other whereas the various online stores undoubtedly sell their music in an pod friendly format or face cutting off the biggest market for portable music players.
The main problem we used to have was drm incompatibilities but that is pretty much dead. What is the benefit of having a singular source controling the music market?
No comments:
Post a Comment