Juss@mac.com
Sep 4, 08:44 PM
Anyone else notice that Elgato have now pulled their Eyehome media streaming device without a replacement? Anything to do with rumors of a rival device from Apple?
tundrabuggy
Dec 30, 09:50 AM
Yes, this sticky obtrusive and uninstallable piece of junk that constantly plagues people in the PC world (not to mention it radically slows your machine down. I recently installed Flash player on the PC side and without my permission McAffe was installed....ARGGGHH. Now they want to infect the Mac world....PLEASE NO!
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:15 PM
The device would not make a lot of sense by itself. There is more to this. Most people are waiting for a Media Center system. Sounds like the device would replace some cables that you can get for 40 bucks. I am refering to the cables that allow you to connect your Mac to the TV.
Maybe I am dense, but why stream it to the TV wen a mini can connect to the TV after downloading the show? Maybe to send it to multiple TVs in the house at the same time? Sounds expensive and short lived.
Need hear more, a single device and movie downloads seem to be only part of the picture.
Maybe I am dense, but why stream it to the TV wen a mini can connect to the TV after downloading the show? Maybe to send it to multiple TVs in the house at the same time? Sounds expensive and short lived.
Need hear more, a single device and movie downloads seem to be only part of the picture.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:55 AM
Because Apple lost? Yes, patent-system IS messed up. But Apple is taking advatange of it as well. Now that Apple lost, everybody complains, yet no-one complains when Apple files for obvious patents as well.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
Slix
Apr 22, 11:48 AM
Awesome. I want a current MBA, but they're a tad too much right now. This will lower those prices.
Multimedia
Sep 3, 08:06 PM
This is torture for me too. My oldest daughter's birthday is the 7th and she's already expecting a notebook. I'm still trying to hold off ordering at least 1 of 2 MacBooks until Tuesday.
I can order a refurb 2.0 with no problem or blindly order a new 2.0 MacBook at education price hoping it will ship with any updates.
The problem is timing. If the MacBooks do not update, I end up with a new stripped MacBook 2.0. If I cave and go for the refurb, it gets here faster and it may include a bit of refurb candy.How old is your daughter about to be? Will she understand waiting for the Merom MacBook? It's gonna be the same speed but it will have twice the L2 cache (4MB) which should make a performance difference. It will also have aabout 30% longer battery life, according to preliminary tests at PC Perspectives (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1), and run cooler. If you can talk her into it, I would wait however long it takes for the Merom MacBook which I think will be before Thanksgiving worst case.
I doubt it will happen in September if that's what you're hoping for. Not enough supply. MBP & iMac get 'em first.
I can order a refurb 2.0 with no problem or blindly order a new 2.0 MacBook at education price hoping it will ship with any updates.
The problem is timing. If the MacBooks do not update, I end up with a new stripped MacBook 2.0. If I cave and go for the refurb, it gets here faster and it may include a bit of refurb candy.How old is your daughter about to be? Will she understand waiting for the Merom MacBook? It's gonna be the same speed but it will have twice the L2 cache (4MB) which should make a performance difference. It will also have aabout 30% longer battery life, according to preliminary tests at PC Perspectives (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1), and run cooler. If you can talk her into it, I would wait however long it takes for the Merom MacBook which I think will be before Thanksgiving worst case.
I doubt it will happen in September if that's what you're hoping for. Not enough supply. MBP & iMac get 'em first.
theBigD23
Mar 22, 03:00 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
Mac Pro was just updated in August. They usually wait at least a year before updating the Pros, usually longer.
Mac Pro was just updated in August. They usually wait at least a year before updating the Pros, usually longer.
Jamesbot
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
aloshka
Mar 29, 01:09 PM
Looking at the figures right now anyone can easily see that iOS is not the dominating platform. Not even the second most popular (which is Symbian), but does anyone really care ?. Same case with the Macs and Mac OS X.
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 08:28 PM
As has been mentioned the typical patent litigation is in the $5-$10 M range paid to the attorneys. With the main lawsuit and 5 countersuits they could have made a big dent in that $100M. Even when you have a large legal staff, litigation is usually handled by outside firms that specialize in those kinds of trials. With 32 million iPods sold in 2005 even a $3 licensing fee (~1% on average is not an atypical licensing fee) you'd easily surpass $100M if you were planning to sell iPods for more than 1 more year. A lump sum is preferable.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
BWhaler
Aug 28, 11:01 PM
Well, I was disappointed, but not surprised.
Since no manufacturer is shipping until mid-September, it is no great shock that Apple did nothing today. Plus, they don't want to be grouped with those companies anyhow.
Since no manufacturer is shipping until mid-September, it is no great shock that Apple did nothing today. Plus, they don't want to be grouped with those companies anyhow.
Macnoviz
Oct 12, 03:37 PM
I think we can call this confirmed. The Chicago Tribune has a pic of Bono and Oprah using the red Nano on the front page of their website - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
ezekielrage_99
Sep 4, 07:00 PM
If the rumor is right or wrong the reality is that it has been over 10 months since the last iPod and iTunes event and therefore we will have to see some sort of an update or event to the iPod lines and more content on the iTunes store.
Personally I would love to see a 60GB or 120GB iPod video made out of the same stuff the MacBook Pro is made out of that would be sweet :cool:
Personally I would love to see a 60GB or 120GB iPod video made out of the same stuff the MacBook Pro is made out of that would be sweet :cool:
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 12:41 PM
i just picked up 30 shares of AAPL. i have a very strong outlook on the next 6 months.
EagerDragon
Sep 16, 12:51 PM
Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
I have to disagree on the price point.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
I have to disagree on the price point.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
dmelgar
Mar 22, 01:56 PM
What about the Mini?
pondosinatra
Mar 23, 08:52 AM
Well unless a non-glossy screen is an option I won't be getting one.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
spicyapple
Oct 12, 06:14 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
Leoff
Sep 26, 08:07 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
ECUpirate44
Mar 30, 01:14 PM
Remember when Jobs and Gates met for an interview with All Things Digital a few years back? I wonder if things like this tarnish their friendship or if they consider it to be strictly business.
old-school
Mar 23, 06:06 PM
It's (supposed to be) a free country....
bamf
Apr 4, 11:48 AM
If you read the linked article you will see that the guard exchanged gunfire with the 2 male suspects. It's not excessive to try to save your own life...
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 04:34 PM
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it!"
In that case, you were only listening to the ignorant. USB ports were common on PC systems a year before the toxic plastic CRT Imacs shipped.
http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg
(click to enlarge)
I upgraded a half dozen systems in early 1997 - yep, they had USB ports. I built a system with an Asus P2L97-S motherboard in fall '97. Yep, USB ports.
When "USB first showed up", only PCs had it.
But, no surprise, few devices were available at the start of 1998 and software support was erratic.
Have fun debugging Apple's ThunderPort support. If the new MBPs couldn't run normal programs without locking up and crashing - do you really think that after waiting months for your ThunderPort disk drive (no price listed, that's scary too) that it will "just work".
It probably will work most of the time after the second firmware update. You may have to wait for the "early 2012" MacBooks for it to always work.
In that case, you were only listening to the ignorant. USB ports were common on PC systems a year before the toxic plastic CRT Imacs shipped.
http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg
(click to enlarge)
I upgraded a half dozen systems in early 1997 - yep, they had USB ports. I built a system with an Asus P2L97-S motherboard in fall '97. Yep, USB ports.
When "USB first showed up", only PCs had it.
But, no surprise, few devices were available at the start of 1998 and software support was erratic.
Have fun debugging Apple's ThunderPort support. If the new MBPs couldn't run normal programs without locking up and crashing - do you really think that after waiting months for your ThunderPort disk drive (no price listed, that's scary too) that it will "just work".
It probably will work most of the time after the second firmware update. You may have to wait for the "early 2012" MacBooks for it to always work.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:42 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
