netdog
Aug 11, 02:55 PM
I wonder what carrier they'll go with?
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:13 PM
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
Zadillo
Aug 7, 09:27 PM
gosh, the finder looks the same :( I dont want the brushed metal anywhere anymore!! Also, they should just integrate address book/ical/mail into one app!!!
Did you miss the part at the beginning where Steve Jobs made it pretty clear that a lot of the biggest secrets aren't going to be revealed yet?
Other people have confirmed that the Finders in the Leopard preview is the old one, and that the "new" Finder is being held back for the time being until it is closer to shipping.
So, it's very likely the reason the Finder looks the same is because what we are seeing publically now IS still the same, and we won't see the new Finder until later.
-Zadillo
Did you miss the part at the beginning where Steve Jobs made it pretty clear that a lot of the biggest secrets aren't going to be revealed yet?
Other people have confirmed that the Finders in the Leopard preview is the old one, and that the "new" Finder is being held back for the time being until it is closer to shipping.
So, it's very likely the reason the Finder looks the same is because what we are seeing publically now IS still the same, and we won't see the new Finder until later.
-Zadillo
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jun 20, 04:28 PM
you might be better off at a mall RadioShack than a stand alone store....they tend to get more inventory of any product
MacinDoc
Mar 22, 02:25 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
rye9
Aug 7, 03:18 PM
Personally.. I wasnt too thrilled with the features shown.. some i liked tho.. but some i didnt care for.. time machine is amazing however.. and spaces is nice too. All in all i cant wait to get my hands on it next year.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:59 PM
Only if you have an active subscription on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
I have three subscriptions. Two in europe, one in US. How does that count?
I have three subscriptions. Two in europe, one in US. How does that count?
wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:43 AM
So excited... How come no FW800 infront? thats a little crazy no?
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
Right now the only device I use for FW800 are Hard drives... I would rather have a 2nd USB 2.0 in front than the 800
tk421
Nov 29, 10:44 AM
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
TripHop
Jun 17, 05:51 AM
West Coast corporate store. At 10AM Paciific they had white codes to order with but no orders were possible due to the overload. So my store manager put all the orders on paper and manually placed them with corporate later in the day over the telephone. He thinks he's getting one WHITE 32 for me and will let me know Tuesday when he gets a copy of the shipping manifest. :eek:
Island Dog
Mar 26, 08:14 AM
I wish the pre-orders would go up already.
fastlane1588
Aug 5, 05:35 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Brad Pitt amp; Angelina
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
Brad Pitt And Angelina Jolie
Angelina Jolie amp; Brad Pitt#39;s
jolie+kids+pictures+2011
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:53 PM
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level....
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
joemama
Nov 28, 07:54 PM
Jobs should walk into negotiations with the attitude of - "We would like more of a royalty for every song sold because if we didn't sell them on iTunes, people would simply download them illegally."
"...And if you don't adhere to this, we will stop selling Universal music and this is exactly what will happen."
Apple may be out 20 cents a song, but people will still buy iPods.
Think how much Universal will be losing.
"...And if you don't adhere to this, we will stop selling Universal music and this is exactly what will happen."
Apple may be out 20 cents a song, but people will still buy iPods.
Think how much Universal will be losing.
28monkeys
Apr 11, 07:10 PM
iphone 4 out of date? Is that even possible with the mighty apps around to entertain me every second i turn it on!?
boringName
Nov 29, 10:14 AM
The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
Yes, that's the irritating part - Universal isn't providing anyone with anything, here. It seems much more like blackmail to continue offering their music library on iTunes (should this "deal" go through) and the Zune store.
To address another item - I'd like to point out that, while not an angel, I "ripped" far more of my friends' music back in the old-days of cassette tapes.
Yes, that's the irritating part - Universal isn't providing anyone with anything, here. It seems much more like blackmail to continue offering their music library on iTunes (should this "deal" go through) and the Zune store.
To address another item - I'd like to point out that, while not an angel, I "ripped" far more of my friends' music back in the old-days of cassette tapes.
meghop
Aug 11, 01:10 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
Lollypop
Jul 20, 12:47 PM
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:38 PM
Lack of Flash support is the achilles heel of iPad. I hope Jobs gets off his high horse and relents.
Flash is dying fast, faster then I even thought it would...
Flash is dying fast, faster then I even thought it would...
daneoni
Aug 27, 04:33 PM
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
Another person who grasps it.
Another person who grasps it.
bedifferent
Apr 27, 11:13 AM
Maybe you'd prefer discourse where everyone agreed and had the same opinion as you. Maybe some white fluffy bunnies too? ;) I kid.
At the end of the day - an issue was indentified. Apple is responding. Arguing whether or not there is an issue is silly. Arguing whether or not Apple is responding is silly.
That's not addressed to you - but everyone at this point
Civil discourse is great, arguing over silly semantics on an issue when all the facts have not been fully presented seems to be "putting the cart before the horse."
As they say, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has em and they all stink ;)
At the end of the day - an issue was indentified. Apple is responding. Arguing whether or not there is an issue is silly. Arguing whether or not Apple is responding is silly.
That's not addressed to you - but everyone at this point
Civil discourse is great, arguing over silly semantics on an issue when all the facts have not been fully presented seems to be "putting the cart before the horse."
As they say, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has em and they all stink ;)
