elbirth
Oct 21, 11:53 AM
Big news. 2GB Mac Pro sticks now cost same as 1GB sticks per GB.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 02:44 PM
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:26 AM
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:06 PM
Darn, I am sooooo mad right now. NO LTE iPhone this year! I have to put up with HTC Thunderbolt for a year till iPhone 6. So what tha hell will iPhone 5 have besides dual core? Here is what I think we will get.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
moose.boy
Aug 29, 02:00 PM
How the hell can nokia be one of the top companies - here in the UK, the phones it makes are seen as throw-away. If you get the average pay as you go user upgrading every 9 months or so, the amount of waste produced is ridiculous.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
spipenge
Jun 7, 06:35 PM
So, there I was...two dropped calls in the span of 10 minutes. I called AT&T's "customer service". I get an actual tech support person on the phone who gives me a bit of what I have to believe was unintentional honesty. In my area of New York City, the AT&T tech person said, there were 7 towers. Three were completely out. One was experiencing 50% degradation. The AT&T "tech support" person told me that there was no date when they expected the three towers to be restored. So...it's hardly a wonder I barely have a signal in my neighborhood, I received dropped calls and the 3G network is downloading at a whopping 678kbps. Way to go AT&T.
ftaok
Sep 12, 03:40 PM
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
The speculation from my general area is that Apple will never (never say never, right..) make a DVR. It's not in their interest to make a DVR. There are several companies that are doing the DVR thing for Macs (el gato and Migila) and IMO, Apple shouldn't tread those waters.
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
The speculation from my general area is that Apple will never (never say never, right..) make a DVR. It's not in their interest to make a DVR. There are several companies that are doing the DVR thing for Macs (el gato and Migila) and IMO, Apple shouldn't tread those waters.
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
mdriftmeyer
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
GGJstudios
May 4, 10:33 AM
Did you read about this solution on Apple web site? Not everybody reads MacRumors.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
sisyphus
Sep 20, 11:01 PM
First things first, I presume that the HD is there to put a great deal of stuff easily in reach. When SJ did the demo, the unit had all the album art/DVD covers on there as well as a synopsis etc... That could all be easily stored on the "iTV" reducing the need to access it all the time.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
ReanimationLP
Oct 14, 03:38 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:08 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
Per the posters on Mod MyI its all IOS's that have been targeted, its At&t system that was upgraded at&t rep stated this was a roll out against the high use people, yet a few got the message who used low data, not sure since it was based on history and not current.:confused:
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
Per the posters on Mod MyI its all IOS's that have been targeted, its At&t system that was upgraded at&t rep stated this was a roll out against the high use people, yet a few got the message who used low data, not sure since it was based on history and not current.:confused:
babyj
Sep 21, 03:17 AM
There is going to be a lot of changes to how we watch and pay for tv shows over the next few years, its still early days at the moment. The main change will be watching everything on demand rather than at the time it is broadcast.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
Howdr
Mar 18, 09:26 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
My style cristiano-ronaldo-vs-
cristiano ronaldo 2011
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 11:08 AM
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
jholzner
Oct 7, 02:15 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 01:42 PM
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
In Hinduism, reincarnation is a natural part of life. As long as you follow the rules of the caste you belong to, you will get better incarnation next time. In Buddhism, reincarnation is not a state of hell in itself, but it's a barrier to salvation - and it's caused by the insatiability of human wants.
There are several hells in Hinduism, none of which are permanent so maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. There are also heavens, but these aren't permanent either. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
In Hinduism, reincarnation is a natural part of life. As long as you follow the rules of the caste you belong to, you will get better incarnation next time. In Buddhism, reincarnation is not a state of hell in itself, but it's a barrier to salvation - and it's caused by the insatiability of human wants.
There are several hells in Hinduism, none of which are permanent so maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. There are also heavens, but these aren't permanent either. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
wpwj40e
Sep 12, 05:52 PM
ABout the only real use I saw for thi sdevice was for the stuff Ihave recorded form elgato 500. Sinc eit dumps it into my itunes library - theoretically I should be able to access it. However, 5 gig files streaming are simply not pretty - and I do not want 640 * 480 on my HDTV.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
Full of Win
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
tk421
Apr 13, 12:34 PM
Nobody I know that's a professional editor (as opposed to a hobbyist) is very excited. If I had to sum up the opinions in two sentences, it would be: It looks like a mixed bag. I need to hear more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
Huntn
Apr 22, 09:27 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق