Machead III
Aug 29, 03:39 AM
Shipping date on the 1.83Ghz White MB is 5-7 days. On the rest of the MBs it's 3-5.
All other comps are 24hr, apart from the iMacs which are 1-2.
Has it been like this for a while already? Is this because of shortages, or is it a sign?
All other comps are 24hr, apart from the iMacs which are 1-2.
Has it been like this for a while already? Is this because of shortages, or is it a sign?
Rustus Maximus
Mar 22, 02:27 PM
...By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro...
I think you'll find that rumors of the Mac Pro's death are greatly exaggerated.
Thunderbolt honestly wouldn't bring very much to a Mac Pro right now. They have access via PCI expansion to drives, etc. that keep pace with and even beat Thunderbolt in some instances. As the tech matures it will outpace others and eventually find its way to the Mac Pro. Yes, the iMacs, and the iToys get more and more powerful with every generation...but then, so do the Pros...they all have a space on Apple's buffet bar.
I think you'll find that rumors of the Mac Pro's death are greatly exaggerated.
Thunderbolt honestly wouldn't bring very much to a Mac Pro right now. They have access via PCI expansion to drives, etc. that keep pace with and even beat Thunderbolt in some instances. As the tech matures it will outpace others and eventually find its way to the Mac Pro. Yes, the iMacs, and the iToys get more and more powerful with every generation...but then, so do the Pros...they all have a space on Apple's buffet bar.
crees!
Sep 5, 01:36 PM
Apple seems to agree with you. They want you to buy lifestyle products that complement your Mac and the iLife apps, as opposed to a sepearte 'Media Center' type hardware.
Yes, and watch that be a beefed up version of Front Row. But, then what would our Microsuck friends use?
Yes, and watch that be a beefed up version of Front Row. But, then what would our Microsuck friends use?
Dustman
Apr 15, 07:40 AM
LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
JesterJJZ
Apr 30, 02:59 PM
I understand where you are coming from. With your feet planted in set in concrete, unable to fathom future developments based on the experimental or high-end tech of the day, the Blu-Ray seems endlessly of value. Much like the tape reels of the 60s.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
At the same token, by 2016 optical media capacity will also increase and be cheaper than your 50GB flash chip.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
At the same token, by 2016 optical media capacity will also increase and be cheaper than your 50GB flash chip.
logandzwon
Mar 30, 01:29 PM
So answer my 2nd question.
Why not just have call is the Mobile App Store? or WindApp store?
Why does MS need to copy Apple and just call it App Store?
Hey, wait, I'm on the side Apple should keep the TM...
But, to directly answer your questions, I think Apple answered it awhile ago;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/1895583251_f102d4324d.jpg
Why not just have call is the Mobile App Store? or WindApp store?
Why does MS need to copy Apple and just call it App Store?
Hey, wait, I'm on the side Apple should keep the TM...
But, to directly answer your questions, I think Apple answered it awhile ago;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/1895583251_f102d4324d.jpg
tylerdurden03
Mar 23, 06:52 PM
Constitution says you need probable cause to get stopped, so the government disregards the constitution and ALSO says you cannot have an app sharing the information? Why bother when the sheeple will lay down and accept...
rtdunham
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
... Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue (by ticketing more DUI drivers)....
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
AidenShaw
Sep 11, 09:45 PM
I mean, imagine where we'd be if Steve Jobs didn't have the forsight to develop an Intel version of OS X from the very beginning, 6 years ago?
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:30 AM
Out in my neck of the woods we have a pretty well strapped police dept and they DO respond to 911 calls about drunk drivers. In fact, in Cali there's signs all over the place telling you to call 911 to report them. lol :)
Glad I don't live where you do :P
Ok, it's obvious you're very confident behind the handling abilities of your car, so hear me out:
* What kind of car is it
* When was the last time you checked your brakes
* How old are your tires, what kind are they, and when was the last time you checked the tire pressure - what was it?
* When was the last time you inspected your tire treads and suspension
I hope you can answer some of these questions.
Admittedly, if you don't do any of the above your car might be unsafe at any speed.
*BMW M5 (my mother's weekend car)
*Brakes were replaced less than a week ago during the car's 100,000 mile service
*Michelin Pilot SuperSport Tires, they are less than a year old, the pressure is 44psi front 48psi rear (per BMW's recommendation), tire pressure was checked less than 48 hours ago when the car last had gas put in it
*Tire treads are inspected every time gas is put in the car, suspension was clean according to our BMW dealership
EDIT: @mrsir2009 - Michigan driving laws specifically state that if you rear end someone, no matter what, you are at fault. You must always keep enough distance between you and the car in front of you to avoid hitting it if they slam on their breaks. My mother has been there and done that. She cut a woman off, breakchecked her, and the woman hit her, the woman was at fault and my Mom even sued her for the cost of the deductible and won, all while admitting that she cut the woman off and breakchecked her.
-Don
Glad I don't live where you do :P
Ok, it's obvious you're very confident behind the handling abilities of your car, so hear me out:
* What kind of car is it
* When was the last time you checked your brakes
* How old are your tires, what kind are they, and when was the last time you checked the tire pressure - what was it?
* When was the last time you inspected your tire treads and suspension
I hope you can answer some of these questions.
Admittedly, if you don't do any of the above your car might be unsafe at any speed.
*BMW M5 (my mother's weekend car)
*Brakes were replaced less than a week ago during the car's 100,000 mile service
*Michelin Pilot SuperSport Tires, they are less than a year old, the pressure is 44psi front 48psi rear (per BMW's recommendation), tire pressure was checked less than 48 hours ago when the car last had gas put in it
*Tire treads are inspected every time gas is put in the car, suspension was clean according to our BMW dealership
EDIT: @mrsir2009 - Michigan driving laws specifically state that if you rear end someone, no matter what, you are at fault. You must always keep enough distance between you and the car in front of you to avoid hitting it if they slam on their breaks. My mother has been there and done that. She cut a woman off, breakchecked her, and the woman hit her, the woman was at fault and my Mom even sued her for the cost of the deductible and won, all while admitting that she cut the woman off and breakchecked her.
-Don
prady16
Sep 5, 07:19 AM
I really wish the media device rumor is true, but i would highly doubt that Apple would bring out the successor to the iPod this early. May be it is a pilot program like the Rockr phone for music on cell phones that Apple wants to experiment with by throwing a media streaming device in the market!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
Rivix
Mar 23, 07:57 PM
Hopefully prices won't go up any. But I shouldn't count on it.
Cougarcat
Apr 30, 03:58 PM
Apple really needs to get on the SATA-3 bandwagon. There are already plenty of SSD choices that can utilize the higher throughput, and more drives are on the way.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
2011 MBPs are Sata III. The 2011 iMac will definitely have it.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
2011 MBPs are Sata III. The 2011 iMac will definitely have it.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 09:33 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.
You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.
Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.
We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.
You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.
Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.
We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.
sinsin07
Mar 23, 05:01 PM
That is ridiculous. Even if Apple pulls the app, They are not going to disappear. There is always Cydia.
Megan Fox Transformers Revenge
meganfoxkj09 11 20 Megan Fox
Megan Fox – Transformers:
day since Transformers 3
applesith
May 3, 11:20 AM
2 External displays?? That is very very sexy! I want one. Too bad i can't justify the purchase.
afd
Apr 11, 02:15 AM
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)
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Cybix
Sep 13, 10:17 PM
thats not an artist rendition.. it's a very very poor photochop job. poorly aligned, among other things.... urgh..
cozmot
Mar 21, 02:16 PM
The point is that MisterMe said nothing that your response would have fit. You can infer all you want, but it's very clear that MisterMe was talking about the market share myth, and was not inferring that Macs are immune to malware.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
exFictitiouZ
May 4, 03:57 AM
I'd seen that. Confused, also...
The reason why i7 seems slower than i5, and 6970M seems slower than 6750M is because they have different baselines. They compared SB i5 2.7GHz (I believe it's i5-2500S) to the previous gen i3 3.2GHz (i3-550), and compared SB i7 3.4GHz (i7-2600) to previous gen i7 2.93 (i7-870).
For the graphics, they compared Radeon 6750M to 4670, and 6970M to 5750. No wonder why 6750M shows a greater performance increase.
This information can be found at the footnote (:
The reason why i7 seems slower than i5, and 6970M seems slower than 6750M is because they have different baselines. They compared SB i5 2.7GHz (I believe it's i5-2500S) to the previous gen i3 3.2GHz (i3-550), and compared SB i7 3.4GHz (i7-2600) to previous gen i7 2.93 (i7-870).
For the graphics, they compared Radeon 6750M to 4670, and 6970M to 5750. No wonder why 6750M shows a greater performance increase.
This information can be found at the footnote (:
Multimedia
Aug 31, 01:50 PM
September 12 SteveNote. Well I must have posted that phrase scores of times earlier this year - just didn't think it would be in San Francisco instead of Paris. All the better. Perfect ending to a wonderful Summer 2006.
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:35 PM
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop. :)
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
milo
Sep 6, 07:52 AM
This is what I had anticipated a while back, but Apple went and invested in the Mini as the quasi-set-top-box. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wonder if they would change horses mid stream, as it were. I think the video AE would be cool, but it's not quite mainstream enough for regular folk. The Mini, on the other hand, would be sufficiently mainstream if Apple cut the price a little bit and made Front Row a little more robust (and included a DVI to HDMI cable ;)).
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
Clive At Five
Sep 19, 02:08 PM
As stated by others already, this bodes very well for Apple signing other studios onto the plan. I would not be surprised one bit if we see it by the end of the month, even.
-Clive
-Clive
No comments:
Post a Comment