gnomeisland
Apr 20, 02:28 PM
2. HDMI out
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
macfan881
Sep 7, 09:46 PM
There has been a lot said here and elsewhere on what Apple is going to release. But let�s step back and look at the big picture for a moment and think through this process.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
yes hd video will be huge but hds now are biger and cheaper to get the new mac pro u can get up to techniclay 3tbs with the new 700+ gig hds if you could get a movie and be able to burn it on your own for anything under 20 bucks i would im sure many others to with many computers now coming out with dvd burners
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
yes hd video will be huge but hds now are biger and cheaper to get the new mac pro u can get up to techniclay 3tbs with the new 700+ gig hds if you could get a movie and be able to burn it on your own for anything under 20 bucks i would im sure many others to with many computers now coming out with dvd burners
lifeinhd
Feb 27, 09:43 AM
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
My parents would've shot me if I'd tried to drop that much $$$ on a computer when I was 14.
As it was, my dad was a little bothered I spent $1400 on a year-old MBP in 2008. But that was when the base MBP was $2k, so it was actually a really good deal :D
And then that Tuesday, the new models came out :p
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
My parents would've shot me if I'd tried to drop that much $$$ on a computer when I was 14.
As it was, my dad was a little bothered I spent $1400 on a year-old MBP in 2008. But that was when the base MBP was $2k, so it was actually a really good deal :D
And then that Tuesday, the new models came out :p
vvebster
Nov 23, 10:58 PM
ROFL, tell me about it :D
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
_2.jpg/345px-Sylvester_Stallone_(1983)_2.jpg "sylvester stallone body.")
dmw007
Nov 15, 08:24 AM
Next Tuesday...
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
Foxer
Mar 19, 03:41 PM
this is exactley why marketshare has dwindled for Mac, they tell you its our way ( powermac) or if you dont submit then we will cripple the Hell out of the othermacs and leave you wanting, so the worlds says screw you Apple and buys a PC with everything they want in it and makes do with a OS that is less then perfect. This is why Apples new computer sales went to 1.7% of all new sales. Apple is a dictator mini monopoly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
Daveismoney
Feb 26, 10:16 AM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/68/csb1.jpg
lmao
lmao
kainjow
Apr 10, 01:04 PM
Every car I've owned has been manual, don't see that changing.
1991 Honda Civic Si - no one could drive that as smooth as I could. Kind of wish I still had it, felt like I mastered a rare skill :cool:
1991 Honda Civic Si - no one could drive that as smooth as I could. Kind of wish I still had it, felt like I mastered a rare skill :cool:
PBF
Apr 2, 01:39 PM
Is anyone able to video chat with other Yahoo users via iChat?
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
Umbongo
Mar 25, 11:40 AM
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
m-dogg
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Hmph...I don't really trust masOSXrumors at all, even if they were correct on a couple things for Leopard, I think those were more just lucky guesses that lots of people were speaking upon prior to WWDC...
23" would be sweet though. I love my 20" iMac, so I can only imagine that with 3 more inches to love!
Maybe they'll just bring out the 30" Anniversary iMac with Jobs saying "Did you really think we'd just ignore our 30th this year?" Then again, maybe not.
23" would be sweet though. I love my 20" iMac, so I can only imagine that with 3 more inches to love!
Maybe they'll just bring out the 30" Anniversary iMac with Jobs saying "Did you really think we'd just ignore our 30th this year?" Then again, maybe not.
NickK1066
Jun 23, 09:17 AM
iOS would need a considerable amount of additions to replace OSX.
Currently iOS does not allow third parties to add drivers for their own attaching products to make services etc available for multiple applications.
MIDI is one such example.
Currently iOS does not allow third parties to add drivers for their own attaching products to make services etc available for multiple applications.
MIDI is one such example.
rezenclowd3
Jan 3, 03:19 AM
Just picked up this on Saturday:
(Sold my 96 Audi A4 2.8L 3 weeks ago. I must say, I do NOT recommend Audi engines, even though I had no problems.)
Sylvester Stallone Tattoos
Sylvester Stallone, 60
Sylvester Stallone and
his ody fat percentage.
accuse Sylvester Stallone
Sylvester Stallone#39;s
(Sold my 96 Audi A4 2.8L 3 weeks ago. I must say, I do NOT recommend Audi engines, even though I had no problems.)
zwida
Sep 6, 07:52 PM
It's too bad that these Hollywood execs will not let Apple handle how movies will be distributed.
Apple will win them over, I suspect. Or rather, the dollar signs in their own eyes will win them over.
That is, if it works (which I guess I have to believe it will).
Apple will win them over, I suspect. Or rather, the dollar signs in their own eyes will win them over.
That is, if it works (which I guess I have to believe it will).
Spanky Deluxe
Aug 6, 09:00 PM
Haha, I love the digs at Vista. Vista's been getting so much bad press recently this is fantastic. They should simply have this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ) video on repeat on screens throughout the event!!
stcanard
Nov 30, 10:47 AM
Another way to ask this question: If Apple decided to compete head-to-head with this feature, what should they do differently?
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Yankee617
Apr 21, 12:58 PM
I could see this as a concern for politicians and celebrities whose locations might be used as fodder for tabloid gossip. Maybe a couple going through a divorce could use the data to substantiate an affair.
Or you could use this information to supply an alibi... just leave your iPhone at home while you go to (distant Location-Y) to perform (nefarious Activity-2)... or lend it to (good Buddy-Beta) who testifies you were with him and the iPhone information supports this alibi.
It helps to know the information is being collected... it even helps those who are not so innocent.
Or you could use this information to supply an alibi... just leave your iPhone at home while you go to (distant Location-Y) to perform (nefarious Activity-2)... or lend it to (good Buddy-Beta) who testifies you were with him and the iPhone information supports this alibi.
It helps to know the information is being collected... it even helps those who are not so innocent.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:12 PM
A 23" Merom iMac. Really nice! But I was hoping for Conroe to power the next iMac series. A bit underwhelming. Isn't the Conroe supposed to have a solid performance edge over the Merom? A faster FSB and higher clockspeeds?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
Carniphage
Nov 30, 03:22 AM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
No No No No No!
All a DVR is - is a better VHS. A way of watching broadcast TV a little more easily. It's a timeshifter, but it is not revolutionary.
DVRs are popular with the (few) people who have them because they end some of the scheduling tyranny of the broadcasters.
But the problem is not scheduling. The problem is broadcasting itself.
Every modern business has had to face up to the opportunities and challenges of the Internet. One of the most significant is what they call disintermediation. Cutting out the middle men. Buying direct.
TV needs to be disintermediated. The advertisers and the networks get in the way. There needs to be a better pathway between producers and consumers.
Advertisers screw-up television. They influence content. Great shows are pulled, not because they don't have enough enthusiastic viewers, but because they don't attract enough consumers of sanitary towels or tooth whitener.
Lousy shows clog up the airwaves because they attract a large number of bottom-dwelling viewers who might just notice the ad for low-price hemorrhoid cream.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
But while dreaming of Celebutard Love Assault... just for a second, imagine how much better TV could be if we could pay Joss Wheadon for Firefly DIRECTLY, or pay someone to make Star Trek with the same level of integrity as Battlestar.
Hint - if it started to suck, we would stop paying.
I'd prefer my television direct.
Screw the advertisers. Screw the networks. Screw Rupert Murdoch. In fact, pull down your dish and cram it in Rupert Murdoch.
Go iTV
C.
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
No No No No No!
All a DVR is - is a better VHS. A way of watching broadcast TV a little more easily. It's a timeshifter, but it is not revolutionary.
DVRs are popular with the (few) people who have them because they end some of the scheduling tyranny of the broadcasters.
But the problem is not scheduling. The problem is broadcasting itself.
Every modern business has had to face up to the opportunities and challenges of the Internet. One of the most significant is what they call disintermediation. Cutting out the middle men. Buying direct.
TV needs to be disintermediated. The advertisers and the networks get in the way. There needs to be a better pathway between producers and consumers.
Advertisers screw-up television. They influence content. Great shows are pulled, not because they don't have enough enthusiastic viewers, but because they don't attract enough consumers of sanitary towels or tooth whitener.
Lousy shows clog up the airwaves because they attract a large number of bottom-dwelling viewers who might just notice the ad for low-price hemorrhoid cream.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
But while dreaming of Celebutard Love Assault... just for a second, imagine how much better TV could be if we could pay Joss Wheadon for Firefly DIRECTLY, or pay someone to make Star Trek with the same level of integrity as Battlestar.
Hint - if it started to suck, we would stop paying.
I'd prefer my television direct.
Screw the advertisers. Screw the networks. Screw Rupert Murdoch. In fact, pull down your dish and cram it in Rupert Murdoch.
Go iTV
C.
TangoCharlie
Sep 1, 11:55 AM
So are the MacBooks going to get Merom or not? I'm going to buy a black one, but am waiting to see.
The answer is yes and no. Yes, the MacBook will get a Merom based CPU, but not for a while... the MacBook Pro and iMacs will get Merom first.....
I think we should expect to see Merom based MacBooks in time for Christmas.
:)
The answer is yes and no. Yes, the MacBook will get a Merom based CPU, but not for a while... the MacBook Pro and iMacs will get Merom first.....
I think we should expect to see Merom based MacBooks in time for Christmas.
:)
HecubusPro
Aug 24, 05:55 PM
I hope this coincides with MBP product refreshes with merom. The excitement is palpable.
roland.g
Sep 1, 12:49 PM
23" Imac is a great size. Add HD resolution then that's great.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
You can already do that. The current iMacs support dual display, just not the 30"
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
You can already do that. The current iMacs support dual display, just not the 30"
fel10
May 2, 07:07 PM
Lion just keeps getting better and better. Can't wait for summer.:D
b3beater
Sep 14, 05:46 PM
I'm glad CR is taking its stand.
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
I always think it's odd when someone would join the board the same of day of their post simply to write something very negative like this which flies in the face of most user experiences. :rolleyes:
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
I always think it's odd when someone would join the board the same of day of their post simply to write something very negative like this which flies in the face of most user experiences. :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment