brepublican
Sep 19, 03:54 PM
If it destroys their whole business model, then it is not dumb to not "try it out".
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
Ingot
Apr 20, 01:17 PM
This is great for my alcoholic blackouts. Fire up the program and find out where I've been. Although on my last trip to San Diego it put me across the border and into a Tijuana cat house.
SEE? A positive use for this. Keep it up Pollyana! I love it!
SEE? A positive use for this. Keep it up Pollyana! I love it!
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:09 PM
Black as a color option, please.
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
az988
Apr 22, 12:21 PM
I'd take the 13" MBP screen over the 13 MBA screen every day of the week, much better quality in every way apart from the small resolution increase. The MBA screen is cheap and nasty (yes I owned both, sold the 2010 Air to buy the 2011 13 MBP)
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
iMikeT
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
I think that this is a good thing. Hopefully, it will convince other studios to join the iTS for distribution. And on top of that, Apple can sell high(er) definition movies.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 17, 03:30 PM
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/john-stossel-explains-how-environmentalism-kills-millions-of-people/
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/john-stossel-explains-how-environmentalism-kills-millions-of-people/
Chris Bangle
Oct 12, 01:35 PM
I just saw those mock ups on the appleinsder forum and i say that it looks much better than i imagined it to..... Im quite impressed. They will sell millions of them, good for Apple, but better for africa. Red or blue nano, tough decision.......
aftk2
Sep 19, 01:38 PM
This is fairly remarkable, considering that the really only viable place to watch these movies is on an iPod! Yes, you can watch it on your iMac, or on your television hooked to a Mac Mini, but really, the set top box (iTV) can't come soon enough! Furthermore, this is really the kind of content that lends itself to the TV, rather than the iPod (Disney movies that parents put on replay for hours on end.)
Of course, maybe these stats are dominated by those who wanted to watch Coyote Ugly on the train, on their way to work ;-) .
Of course, maybe these stats are dominated by those who wanted to watch Coyote Ugly on the train, on their way to work ;-) .
longofest
Oct 12, 12:25 PM
I hope people like Red, because this is definitely the iPod to buy... goes to a great cause, and doesn't cost you anything more.
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 09:56 AM
If Apple DOES introduce C2D MacBook Pros at this, it will have to totally redesign the case to make it "invite event" worthy.
If all that's being changed is the processor, or minor cae changes (like the addition of FW800 across the line), it will simply be done in silent, overnight fashion as was the case with the iMac update.
That being said, I don't see such a radical case design this soon. That seems more like something where they'd like to focus on the computer itself, which wouldn't happen as part of a photo show.
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Also, there's always a chance that in addition to an Aperture update, we'll get TOTALLY NEW photo software; remember what happened with Final Cut Pro - first came it and then came a slew of other video products from Apple.
If all that's being changed is the processor, or minor cae changes (like the addition of FW800 across the line), it will simply be done in silent, overnight fashion as was the case with the iMac update.
That being said, I don't see such a radical case design this soon. That seems more like something where they'd like to focus on the computer itself, which wouldn't happen as part of a photo show.
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Also, there's always a chance that in addition to an Aperture update, we'll get TOTALLY NEW photo software; remember what happened with Final Cut Pro - first came it and then came a slew of other video products from Apple.
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
0815
Apr 20, 12:46 PM
The fact that apple has a huge location database accessible by anybody with an app scares me. That's too much centralized data for somebody to do bad things with, even if it's not Apple. THAT is why this is a bad thing.
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
JRM PowerPod
Sep 9, 09:01 AM
With the decent graphics and these C2D's they make the iMac a formiddable machine. Alot of PowerMac's are going to be replaced by these new iMac's i feel. Probably Apple's most impressive, solid and reliable machine at the moment
macintel4me
Sep 4, 11:40 PM
This seems contradictory.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
$10 to buy to your computer. It then streams to your living room using the 'new device'.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
$10 to buy to your computer. It then streams to your living room using the 'new device'.
rtdunham
Mar 23, 05:58 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
Seems to me if it's NOT censorship to prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, it shouldn't be censorship to ban yelling "DUI stop" on the crowded highways we stage our lives on daily (see what I did there?). ;)
I say pull the apps.
Doesn't matter what party a senator is from , they are all liars and cheats.
Gosh, maybe we should ban stereotyping, too. :)
Seems to me if it's NOT censorship to prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, it shouldn't be censorship to ban yelling "DUI stop" on the crowded highways we stage our lives on daily (see what I did there?). ;)
I say pull the apps.
Doesn't matter what party a senator is from , they are all liars and cheats.
Gosh, maybe we should ban stereotyping, too. :)
vansouza
Sep 9, 05:41 PM
world peace... cool... an iMac on every desk and an iPhone in every pocket.:D
TheKrillr
Sep 5, 05:59 PM
Yes I have..The only difference is I'm including the recording part.
Well, one option would be for the video airTunes, to have an input + hardware Mpeg-2 encoding and stream it back to your computer onto your hard drive.
This would be awesome, especially for rich people who can buy an xserve with xsan to store all their stuff on ;-) One tiny box in the living room, one huge fileserver in a backroom.
But yes, you'd probably need to have Front Row or some such on the front end, on the video airTunes.
Well, one option would be for the video airTunes, to have an input + hardware Mpeg-2 encoding and stream it back to your computer onto your hard drive.
This would be awesome, especially for rich people who can buy an xserve with xsan to store all their stuff on ;-) One tiny box in the living room, one huge fileserver in a backroom.
But yes, you'd probably need to have Front Row or some such on the front end, on the video airTunes.
luminosity
Sep 1, 11:37 AM
wow. would that be the biggest mainstream desktop around?
Rigby
Apr 20, 11:52 AM
Unless I'm missing it in the thread, I didn't see anything on this particular question. Does anyone know if this database on the iPhone is accessible by apps? ie. can you download some app that then scans the database and uploads your information elsewhere behind the scenes?Only if the device is jailbroken. Normally, there is a "sandbox" in place that prevents apps from accessing system files (and files belonging to other apps). Jailbreaking effectively disables this sandbox.
zacman
Apr 20, 12:36 PM
1984 is not happening because companies and the government spies on you but because of people that are saying: "So what? It's not a big issue."
Sol
Sep 9, 01:57 AM
Did a certain platform jumping red-cap wearing Italian plumber write the headline?
Mama mia! iMac Core 2 Duo Benchamarks!
Mama mia! iMac Core 2 Duo Benchamarks!
llama-man
Sep 6, 07:21 AM
I have just had confirmation of one of our suppliers that new iMacs are on the way next week. He didn't elaborate on the details though.
Next week is gonna be expensive.
Next week is gonna be expensive.
retrorichie
Apr 22, 11:50 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
Because they can. The 13" MBP is a gateway drug.
Because they can. The 13" MBP is a gateway drug.