AidenShaw
Mar 23, 09:59 AM
LOL! You might want to ask them what the data rates on the actual hard drive (or drives) in the case is. LaCie makes nice stuff, but it's quite gimmicky to only talk about interface transfer rates when the real performance is dependent on the hard drives.
2.5" laptop hard drives, at that, for the 1TB model.
In RAID-0 no less, so the probability of failure is doubled.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ...
Do you mean 2 Gb/s ? No laptop drive can sustain 1 GB/s - few can sustain much more than 100 MB/s.
2.5" laptop hard drives, at that, for the 1TB model.
In RAID-0 no less, so the probability of failure is doubled.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ...
Do you mean 2 Gb/s ? No laptop drive can sustain 1 GB/s - few can sustain much more than 100 MB/s.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
Yankee617
Apr 20, 12:26 PM
WOW this is a major privacy breach.
With any cell phone (smart or otherwise) the telephone networks have been able to track your movements. All you need to do is to keep it turned on. Not much you can do about this, except hope they don't exercise that ability. Turning the device off frequently can help somewhat... they don't know where you've been (or where your device has been) when the device is turned off.
So I'm going to buy an iPad (Wi-Fi only). I'll either turn it off or close the cover (putting it to sleep) when I'm not using it. I would like to see old location data automatically deleted and to have the option of not backing up location data.
Does the MBP have anything similar inside? No reason why it couldn't.
With any cell phone (smart or otherwise) the telephone networks have been able to track your movements. All you need to do is to keep it turned on. Not much you can do about this, except hope they don't exercise that ability. Turning the device off frequently can help somewhat... they don't know where you've been (or where your device has been) when the device is turned off.
So I'm going to buy an iPad (Wi-Fi only). I'll either turn it off or close the cover (putting it to sleep) when I'm not using it. I would like to see old location data automatically deleted and to have the option of not backing up location data.
Does the MBP have anything similar inside? No reason why it couldn't.
Popeye206
Mar 23, 05:35 PM
OMG! This app is great! Now that I've played with it some I LOVE it!
It's freak'n hilarious too! You can change your alerts to things like "Hillbilly", or NY Cab driver. This is a really cool app and great for car clubs too as it has a caravan feature and you can track all the people in your caravan.
Love it!
It's freak'n hilarious too! You can change your alerts to things like "Hillbilly", or NY Cab driver. This is a really cool app and great for car clubs too as it has a caravan feature and you can track all the people in your caravan.
Love it!
ranReloaded
Apr 30, 10:30 PM
When the hell are they gonna re-implement spaces !!@$%#^&(&)(#
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Call me clumsy or whatever, but I hate the 'corners': I accidentally trigger them all the time on a frien's machine. Mostly because I use the Apple menu a lot. I DO miss the old mouse's side buttons/center button!
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Call me clumsy or whatever, but I hate the 'corners': I accidentally trigger them all the time on a frien's machine. Mostly because I use the Apple menu a lot. I DO miss the old mouse's side buttons/center button!
ZAiPhone
May 3, 12:21 PM
Software options are an epic fail more expensive than Apple's own Mac app store:eek:
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:17 AM
I'm salaried (aka "Exempt") in my job. We used to clock in and out but they made us quit several years ago and now there is no tracking of our hours. I was told at the time it was a legal requirement that we not be made to clock in and out.
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
Btw, the unemployment rate is NOT 8.9 percent.. its a lot higher than that and in my state its about equal with all the other states in this blasted union.
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
Btw, the unemployment rate is NOT 8.9 percent.. its a lot higher than that and in my state its about equal with all the other states in this blasted union.
Eraserhead
Aug 23, 05:10 PM
It seems advantageous for both parties, Creative get the opportunity to make some money for a change too ;)
arn
Aug 31, 01:19 PM
Story updated.
It appears there will be an event on Sept 12th in San Francisco which will be broadcast to London.
arn
It appears there will be an event on Sept 12th in San Francisco which will be broadcast to London.
arn
OneMammoth
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
lol, so true
lol, so true
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 01:17 PM
these obviosly gonna be optimizd for the full screen ipod, whats wrong with avi format anyway.
cirus
Apr 19, 07:45 PM
Sometimes I laugh when I read this website.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.
Eraserhead
Sep 26, 01:35 PM
Yea Sim Free is the only way I'd get an iPhone. No way in hell am I giving up my 7 year old phone number. Sim free, stick in my ancient Virgin Mobile sim card and BAM. We have a winner.
You know you can get your number moved to a new network, you just have to ask.
You know you can get your number moved to a new network, you just have to ask.
ksz
Jul 14, 09:29 AM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good. I luv this statement:
As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.
As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.
mymacluvsme
Aug 24, 03:56 AM
Is this a one-time payment to include all future uses?
spicyapple
Sep 19, 01:31 PM
Wow. Good news for Apple and the future of the iTS in getting more studios on board. :)
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
mrkramer
Apr 17, 02:13 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 02:18 PM
NI am, however, starting to see why they allowed a sneak preview of iTV. Look how many of us are saying "I can't wait for iTV!" now that we've had some time to experiment with iTunes movie downloads!
Yes, we're all looking forward to a product to come out in 3 or 4 months that will actually make the product they released last week bearable!
Brilliant!!
Yes, we're all looking forward to a product to come out in 3 or 4 months that will actually make the product they released last week bearable!
Brilliant!!
HecubusPro
Sep 4, 07:56 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
The Appleinsider rumor at least makes sense from an itunes/tv/movie purchase standpoint. Renting would be sort of a PITA. Who would want to download a good quality movie, often taking hours or days, unless you have a lot of people torrenting at the same time, just to have it accessible for a week or so? Not me.
This will be a movie purchase service. You buy the movie, DL it from itunes, then do what you want to with it. Watch it on you computer, rip it to DVD and watch it on your TV, run it through an air tunes like device so you don't have to rip it if you don't want.
It sounds pretty interesting to me. We'll see when it happens. Regardless, the quality is going to have be pretty good for people to want to watch them on their TV's. Offering 700mb .avi rips just won't cut it.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
The Appleinsider rumor at least makes sense from an itunes/tv/movie purchase standpoint. Renting would be sort of a PITA. Who would want to download a good quality movie, often taking hours or days, unless you have a lot of people torrenting at the same time, just to have it accessible for a week or so? Not me.
This will be a movie purchase service. You buy the movie, DL it from itunes, then do what you want to with it. Watch it on you computer, rip it to DVD and watch it on your TV, run it through an air tunes like device so you don't have to rip it if you don't want.
It sounds pretty interesting to me. We'll see when it happens. Regardless, the quality is going to have be pretty good for people to want to watch them on their TV's. Offering 700mb .avi rips just won't cut it.
Huntn
Apr 11, 10:47 PM
If you try to imagine the future of society and governance, you either are going to regress to unregulated capitalism and barrons or move forward to regulated capitalism or some form of socialism. The idea is to raise up the majority of people, not every person for themselves, not screw over your fellow human being for your personal advantage.
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.
So what would you call moving forward?
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.
So what would you call moving forward?
mpstrex
Sep 14, 12:22 AM
I agree about the whole "looks like the LG chocolate" conversations, but I also agree that the LG Chocolate ripped off the iPod and in some ways, beat Apple to the punch. I understand it's only fair, from many reviewers.
I hope an iPhone will be better than the Rokr.
mpstrex
ps-A lot of smart phones allow you to dial on the touch screen, like the Palm Treo. If apple did that and made it easy to put iCal appointments in there, I won't buy a Smart Phone. Then again, $300 for a Razr when they were still expensive makes me want to hang on to that thing.
I hope an iPhone will be better than the Rokr.
mpstrex
ps-A lot of smart phones allow you to dial on the touch screen, like the Palm Treo. If apple did that and made it easy to put iCal appointments in there, I won't buy a Smart Phone. Then again, $300 for a Razr when they were still expensive makes me want to hang on to that thing.
jz1492
Nov 13, 05:42 PM
I don't see Apple as the client. After all, they didn't ask for the app. They didn't provide any kind of spec, or put out an RFP, or specify any guidelines as to what it should do. To me they are more of an unwanted kibbutzer looking over my shoulder. On more than one occasion I've had Apple reject updates that did things my customers really wanted, for dumb reasons (usually reasons that they could have asserted for the 20 updates I did prior to that point).
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
CrackedButter
Sep 19, 06:21 PM
Rather than a RAID, what they need is a foolproof NAS (Network-attached storage). A NAS is basically a special purpose computer that has a network port (wired/wireless) as well as internal/external storage through USB/SATA/eSATA. For example D-Link makes a NAS that is compatible with uPnP as well as Bonjour. This box has space for an internal hard drive (ATA) as well as USB2 for external HDs. It has 802.11g wireless as well as ethernet port. You just connect is as another network device in your home and then you can dump your media into it from your PC/Mac. So, for people with laptops, you can buy your media or RIP them into the NAS and then iTV can use it. This can work well for people with laptops. iTV should be able to work off of a NAS rather than a PC/Mac.
The current versions of NAS may not be foolproof (Apple quality standards) and therefore this is a companion product that Apple could produce for home media storage. Another advantage of the NAS is that it can be near where iTV is rather than the computer since the bandwidth requirements for iTV are more important than for the computer. You don't want glitches while playing back media. So, you could live with downloading the media from online into NAS directly (through a slower wireless connection). Then have the NAS connected through wired ethernet to iTV.
Hope this makes sense!!
Makes sense to me but you should be informing the other guy. :)
The current versions of NAS may not be foolproof (Apple quality standards) and therefore this is a companion product that Apple could produce for home media storage. Another advantage of the NAS is that it can be near where iTV is rather than the computer since the bandwidth requirements for iTV are more important than for the computer. You don't want glitches while playing back media. So, you could live with downloading the media from online into NAS directly (through a slower wireless connection). Then have the NAS connected through wired ethernet to iTV.
Hope this makes sense!!
Makes sense to me but you should be informing the other guy. :)
twoff
Sep 19, 09:33 PM
For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Not so fast!!!!!
Are you sure you will need all of that?
Home network? Perhaps, but iTV may connect directly to your cable/DSL modem.
TV with HDMI/Component inputs? Probably.
A computer with a large HD? Assuming the intent is to stream purchased movies from your computer, sure.
But what if that isn't the real purpose? Imagine an iTV directly connected to the internet, offering access via your TV to:
Internet radio
Internet television
Audio/Video Podcasts
Internet games
Pay per view
... and if you do happen to have that home network, access to your own media content.
No 'productivity' applications, pure entertainment. No worries about backups. No worries about anti-virus.
An entertainment appliance.
Better yet, an entertainment appliance that plays well in a world where more and more people, not just the professionals, are providing content.
The internet today is full of wonderful, bizarre, informative, dull, sick, funny, sad and entertaining things, that require some effort to find. It's a constant battle to stay on top of the latest sites, find the coolest links, etc.
What if iTV is really about taking the work out of that?
Not about making it easier to bring Hollywood into your home, but the world?
Not so fast!!!!!
Are you sure you will need all of that?
Home network? Perhaps, but iTV may connect directly to your cable/DSL modem.
TV with HDMI/Component inputs? Probably.
A computer with a large HD? Assuming the intent is to stream purchased movies from your computer, sure.
But what if that isn't the real purpose? Imagine an iTV directly connected to the internet, offering access via your TV to:
Internet radio
Internet television
Audio/Video Podcasts
Internet games
Pay per view
... and if you do happen to have that home network, access to your own media content.
No 'productivity' applications, pure entertainment. No worries about backups. No worries about anti-virus.
An entertainment appliance.
Better yet, an entertainment appliance that plays well in a world where more and more people, not just the professionals, are providing content.
The internet today is full of wonderful, bizarre, informative, dull, sick, funny, sad and entertaining things, that require some effort to find. It's a constant battle to stay on top of the latest sites, find the coolest links, etc.
What if iTV is really about taking the work out of that?
Not about making it easier to bring Hollywood into your home, but the world?
