bonehead
Nov 29, 03:23 AM
Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.
Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:35 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
EvilEvil
Apr 8, 02:56 AM
Why anyone would buy anything from Best Buy (no matter what they purchase there) is beyond me.
Gugulino
Apr 6, 01:00 PM
The quality of a blu ray film is superior to all forms of digital distribution over the internet, like iTunes for example and it is a huge improvement over DVD. I can't understand why people still stick with DVD. Like Apple! Macs have no blu ray disc tray, only DVD. I can not understand that!
When you have all these great HD Camcorders and great movie editing software on a Mac why you should burn a DVD and loose most of the quality. Sure, you can upload HD movies to YouTube or Vimeo directly from iMovie, but it is not the same quality as, if you would burn a blu ray. At least the Mac Pro should have an option for a blu ray disc tray and DVD Studio Pro should support blu ray authoring.
I hope Apple will do a step in this direction with the new FC Studio.
When you have all these great HD Camcorders and great movie editing software on a Mac why you should burn a DVD and loose most of the quality. Sure, you can upload HD movies to YouTube or Vimeo directly from iMovie, but it is not the same quality as, if you would burn a blu ray. At least the Mac Pro should have an option for a blu ray disc tray and DVD Studio Pro should support blu ray authoring.
I hope Apple will do a step in this direction with the new FC Studio.
bjdku
Sep 18, 11:05 PM
It would be cool but how is Apple going to keep up with this feverous pace of Intel chip releases? In a couple months there will be another chip upgrade in the whole line...what is the next chip after Merom?
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:45 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it, a story that gets reported months ago and then it forgotten, a new story that appears and blows it way out of proportion, news articles that imply Apple is SPYING ON YOU (even though Apple does not get this information), and lots of ignorance spewed all over the Web.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Pretty well said.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Pretty well said.
progx
Apr 25, 04:02 PM
Wow! There are some VERY stupid people out there. Any phone that transmits GPS or has to locate the next available tower signal is GOING TO TRACK your phone.
Your computer's IP address is a tracking tool as well. Let's sue everyone for trying to make other people's lives easier.
Your computer's IP address is a tracking tool as well. Let's sue everyone for trying to make other people's lives easier.
iJawn108
Aug 6, 03:21 PM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/
rovex
Mar 22, 02:46 PM
Dude go back to school. And pay particular attention to learn about diagonal lengths and surface areas of rectangles.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
gta50419
Mar 26, 10:51 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS?
what $500 product?
what $500 product?
Multimedia
Aug 21, 01:25 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:05 PM
This suit has merit. If I turn off location services there should be no record of where I go.
Why would you assume that turning off location services would prevent tracking? The phone is still connected to the cell network. I'd assume Airplane Mode would turn off tracking, but not location services.
With that and other simple info I can find out where you work, where you bank, where you live, what time you usually get home. All it takes is one website or email attachment to compromise your device. This info is not encrypted.
I do think if Any device does this they should be sued
First, someone would have to obtain your phone. No one seems to mention this. Big bad Apple is tracking us all!!! Apple isn't tracking anyone. The phone is logging location information for some reason, perhaps legit, perhaps a bug, perhaps test code that got left behind, who knows. The point is, your location isn't compromised unless someone steals your phone.
And if they steal your phone, they'll have your address book, your web bookmarks, your email, your notes, etc.
Suing over this is idiotic and really shows how absurd this whole "privacy" debate has become. Scott McNealy said it best years ago: "Privacy is dead. Get over it."
Why would you assume that turning off location services would prevent tracking? The phone is still connected to the cell network. I'd assume Airplane Mode would turn off tracking, but not location services.
With that and other simple info I can find out where you work, where you bank, where you live, what time you usually get home. All it takes is one website or email attachment to compromise your device. This info is not encrypted.
I do think if Any device does this they should be sued
First, someone would have to obtain your phone. No one seems to mention this. Big bad Apple is tracking us all!!! Apple isn't tracking anyone. The phone is logging location information for some reason, perhaps legit, perhaps a bug, perhaps test code that got left behind, who knows. The point is, your location isn't compromised unless someone steals your phone.
And if they steal your phone, they'll have your address book, your web bookmarks, your email, your notes, etc.
Suing over this is idiotic and really shows how absurd this whole "privacy" debate has become. Scott McNealy said it best years ago: "Privacy is dead. Get over it."
balamw
Apr 6, 04:32 PM
Because as we all know Costco is the leading reseller and indicator for technology products.
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
gnasher729
Jul 14, 05:20 PM
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
BenRoethig
Apr 6, 12:35 PM
I can't wait. I think a 13" air will be my next Mac.
Hastings101
Apr 6, 03:29 PM
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
georgee2face
Mar 22, 02:17 PM
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
it un-nerves me that I think I do! :)
it un-nerves me that I think I do! :)
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
revelated
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
HyperZboy
Apr 7, 01:52 PM
lol... You really think Intel is the reason Apple laptops cost what they do? Really?
I never said I considered it overpriced.
I was making a point that it's now underpowered for some users and less powerful than the previous model.
And another point... I'm not really blaming Apple. Obviously, it's Intel's fault for forcing the Intel graphics on Apple, among other companies that plan to use the new CPUs and Intel logic boards.
For many people with the current model, the new Macbook Air will be a downgrade unless you really need some of the other new features.
I never said I considered it overpriced.
I was making a point that it's now underpowered for some users and less powerful than the previous model.
And another point... I'm not really blaming Apple. Obviously, it's Intel's fault for forcing the Intel graphics on Apple, among other companies that plan to use the new CPUs and Intel logic boards.
For many people with the current model, the new Macbook Air will be a downgrade unless you really need some of the other new features.
hulugu
Mar 22, 01:02 AM
This makes me want to go have lunch at the Cafe My Lai.
Oh wow, I didn't catch that until now.
Oh wow, I didn't catch that until now.
gkarris
Nov 29, 10:39 AM
In the 70's:
Universal makes "Battlestar Galactica", and "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", fun Sci-Fi shows.
In the 90's and early 00's:
USA Networks launches the Scifi Channel. They get great shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Farscape". USA Network has some great shows as well, "Monk", "The Dead Zone", "Peacemakers"
That was then....
This is now...
NBC has nothing but crap and gets jeleous of cable networks such as USA.
NBC/Universal buys USA Networks.
NBC/Universal cancels the last season of "Farscape", and the new western, "Peacemakers". They attempt to cancel "Monk" and "The Dead Zone", but to no avail. They also attempt to cancel "Stargate SG-1" and replace it with "Stargate Atlantis", this fails too.
NBC/Universal "retells" "Battlestar Galactica" - sorry, it's all about skin and a drunk Col. Tigh - junk.
NBC/Universal now is "cleaning up" the Scifi Channel by putting on on its own shows, "Eureka" (it is good though).
NBC/Universal is cancelling "Stargate SG-1", at a con, one of its actors did mention that "Universal did let it go on for another 5 seasons".
NBC/Universal's #1 show on the Sci-Fi channel is Wrestling....
Universal is good for what again???
(note: I might have my timing off, like the Farscape cancellation, but I think Scifi might have seen it coming with that series cancellation).
Universal makes "Battlestar Galactica", and "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", fun Sci-Fi shows.
In the 90's and early 00's:
USA Networks launches the Scifi Channel. They get great shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Farscape". USA Network has some great shows as well, "Monk", "The Dead Zone", "Peacemakers"
That was then....
This is now...
NBC has nothing but crap and gets jeleous of cable networks such as USA.
NBC/Universal buys USA Networks.
NBC/Universal cancels the last season of "Farscape", and the new western, "Peacemakers". They attempt to cancel "Monk" and "The Dead Zone", but to no avail. They also attempt to cancel "Stargate SG-1" and replace it with "Stargate Atlantis", this fails too.
NBC/Universal "retells" "Battlestar Galactica" - sorry, it's all about skin and a drunk Col. Tigh - junk.
NBC/Universal now is "cleaning up" the Scifi Channel by putting on on its own shows, "Eureka" (it is good though).
NBC/Universal is cancelling "Stargate SG-1", at a con, one of its actors did mention that "Universal did let it go on for another 5 seasons".
NBC/Universal's #1 show on the Sci-Fi channel is Wrestling....
Universal is good for what again???
(note: I might have my timing off, like the Farscape cancellation, but I think Scifi might have seen it coming with that series cancellation).
Liske
Aug 17, 02:42 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment