Ricard
Aug 23, 05:43 PM
Apple needs to sell 334,448.160535117 iPods to get the "investment" money back...
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 01:10 PM
Granted, this is a good thing.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
Satori
Apr 19, 08:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 03:26 PM
You mean this one, a single card, running FarCry at 3840 X 2160 almost two years ago. Since this was almost two years ago, I'm sure its a little dated. :)
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
Single card? Do you even know what SLI is? Did you even read the article? :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
Single card? Do you even know what SLI is? Did you even read the article? :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting.
pika2000
Apr 11, 02:06 AM
What I don't get is why can't Apple enable any iOS device (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) as an Airplay target device? Obviously iOS supports it as Apple TV can be a target for Airplay from iTunes.
McGiord
Mar 29, 01:30 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
BlizzardBomb
Aug 28, 12:38 PM
Why so many negative votes?
Maybe because most manufacturers have started selling Core 2 Duo computers but Apple hasn't.
Maybe because most manufacturers have started selling Core 2 Duo computers but Apple hasn't.
avkills
Sep 5, 05:02 AM
H.264 isn't really that much data.
The Wildlife 720p HD stream from Apple is less than 3000 kbits/sec. For comparison, the Pixlet demo is like 27 mbits/sec. A 1080p h.264 stream is less than 10 mbits/sec.
So with those numbers, a 720p stream with 5.1 audio should easily stream over even a 10 mbit network device. So I can easily see this working over 802.11g.
Now the only issue is what they are going to put in the device to decode the streams with. Forward compatibility with future codecs would be nice.
-mark
The Wildlife 720p HD stream from Apple is less than 3000 kbits/sec. For comparison, the Pixlet demo is like 27 mbits/sec. A 1080p h.264 stream is less than 10 mbits/sec.
So with those numbers, a 720p stream with 5.1 audio should easily stream over even a 10 mbit network device. So I can easily see this working over 802.11g.
Now the only issue is what they are going to put in the device to decode the streams with. Forward compatibility with future codecs would be nice.
-mark
dextertangocci
Sep 16, 02:57 AM
I' SO sick of iPhone rumours:rolleyes:
The iPhone will NOT be released..... EVER!
The iPhone will NOT be released..... EVER!
vincenz
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
"Next year" as in October 2011 or October 2012?
djrobsd
Apr 14, 12:43 PM
This is seriously bad news for Thunderbolt. This is just like Intel supporting both USB 2.0 and Firewire in the past... Thunderbolt will be a specialized gig for the Macs, just like Firewire was, and most PC users will end up using USB...
Intel should have stood their ground on Thunderbolt... Would have pushed component manufacturers to make more Thunderbolt devices, now we're going to have a mish mash, and those of us with Macs are getting the shaft because we won't get USB 3.0 from Apple...
Hopefully there will be adapters and converters.. And hopefully Apple will get their heads out of their asses on the next refresh and add BOTH USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to give us consumers maximum flexibility.
Intel should have stood their ground on Thunderbolt... Would have pushed component manufacturers to make more Thunderbolt devices, now we're going to have a mish mash, and those of us with Macs are getting the shaft because we won't get USB 3.0 from Apple...
Hopefully there will be adapters and converters.. And hopefully Apple will get their heads out of their asses on the next refresh and add BOTH USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to give us consumers maximum flexibility.
wnurse
Aug 24, 08:48 AM
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
LaDirection
Mar 29, 02:06 PM
Bookmark this and pull it up in 4 years...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:30 AM
There are people trying to paint this as though any tablet or mobile phone is similar to the rest so Apple has no case. Not true. Apple is suing one company for a copy so close that it is hard to see the difference.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
LOL - right. And that pinch and zoom feature on the palm was tremendous.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
LOL - right. And that pinch and zoom feature on the palm was tremendous.
MacinDoc
Sep 9, 11:48 AM
My point is that with the new processors and RAM upgrades, the iMac is headed towards more powerful use that could potentially switch over a PC gamer. If you wanted to do some serious gaming on the 24" iMac you could....if not for the poor video card options.
Throw a dog a bone here and at least give us a 512MB option.
I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?
Throw a dog a bone here and at least give us a 512MB option.
I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?
Mundy
Sep 10, 11:41 AM
Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
igazza
Mar 22, 11:32 PM
Build to order 6-core i7 would be nice apple
alent1234
Mar 29, 11:55 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
using the keyboard, how quaint
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
using the keyboard, how quaint
Sodner
Apr 19, 12:54 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
cube
Apr 22, 01:43 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/new-asus-eee-pc-netbook-with-optical-drive/2658
The MBA looks bad as an ultraportable? L.O.L.
The MBP is for people who want a powerful notebook. People who want a laptop capable of using parts that equal 85-watts or higher.
I don't want a MacBook Air. I want a MacBook Pro without an optical drive that is slightly thinner than the current MacBook Pro.
If you think the only thing that separates the MacBook Air from the Pro is an optical drive then I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Clearly someone that thinks a 15" Zacate notebook with an optical drive makes a 15" MacBook Pro with a quad core 45 watt CPU and a 25W+ GPU without an optical drive look bad is someone that knows little about what they're talking about.
I don't see HP Envy owners complaining about their lack of an optical drive inside their machines nor do I see people knock that particular fact about the Envy.
So, ONE netbook which has an optical drive. Which makes the MBA look bad because it doesn't have one.
Actually, most netbooks make the MBA look bad because it doesn't have gigabit ethernet.
And a 15" Zacate which is not a notebook because the CPU is too weak, it's not a netbook, and it's not an ultraportable because it's too big would make an MBP without optical disk look bad because of the price, even if it has little reason to exist (unclassifiable in a bad way).
The MBA looks bad as an ultraportable? L.O.L.
The MBP is for people who want a powerful notebook. People who want a laptop capable of using parts that equal 85-watts or higher.
I don't want a MacBook Air. I want a MacBook Pro without an optical drive that is slightly thinner than the current MacBook Pro.
If you think the only thing that separates the MacBook Air from the Pro is an optical drive then I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Clearly someone that thinks a 15" Zacate notebook with an optical drive makes a 15" MacBook Pro with a quad core 45 watt CPU and a 25W+ GPU without an optical drive look bad is someone that knows little about what they're talking about.
I don't see HP Envy owners complaining about their lack of an optical drive inside their machines nor do I see people knock that particular fact about the Envy.
So, ONE netbook which has an optical drive. Which makes the MBA look bad because it doesn't have one.
Actually, most netbooks make the MBA look bad because it doesn't have gigabit ethernet.
And a 15" Zacate which is not a notebook because the CPU is too weak, it's not a netbook, and it's not an ultraportable because it's too big would make an MBP without optical disk look bad because of the price, even if it has little reason to exist (unclassifiable in a bad way).
evilgEEk
Sep 4, 08:04 PM
This device is precisely why I haven't replaced my Airport Express (see sig). I sure hope this turns out to be true because this is exactly what I've been waiting for!
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
MooVitZ
Sep 26, 08:44 PM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
EagerBatucada
Apr 25, 06:03 PM
Suppose it is liquid metal? How do you suppose the currently 0.50 stock LQMT (Liquid Metal Technologies) will react?
batitombo
Mar 22, 09:18 PM
Heh, and I just got a new MBP :/
No comments:
Post a Comment