ecflagcorp
Jun 23, 12:21 PM
I can see many benefits to develop from this. Maybe not on an iMac, but a larger iPad with iMac or Mac Pro power from a designing stand point.
Yes, keep the use of a mouse and/or keyboard for the comfort side of things. But when it comes to intricate design, a mouse is just a pain to use. A Wacom tablet has been around a while and some still use it, but you're pretty much drawing blind folded. If you could use a type of stylus or a finger and draw/edit directly on the screen that would make detail work sooooo much easier and faster.
I think this is a good direction. Who says the iMac will still be a desktop monitor/computer? It could be like the iPad maybe with a popout easel for use as a freestanding monitor (maybe not as cheesy as that, but you get the picture), while still keeping your "all in one" desktop component.
Yes, keep the use of a mouse and/or keyboard for the comfort side of things. But when it comes to intricate design, a mouse is just a pain to use. A Wacom tablet has been around a while and some still use it, but you're pretty much drawing blind folded. If you could use a type of stylus or a finger and draw/edit directly on the screen that would make detail work sooooo much easier and faster.
I think this is a good direction. Who says the iMac will still be a desktop monitor/computer? It could be like the iPad maybe with a popout easel for use as a freestanding monitor (maybe not as cheesy as that, but you get the picture), while still keeping your "all in one" desktop component.
Jazwire
Apr 21, 11:25 AM
Oh save us mighty Senator Stuart Smally.
Maybe focus on Jobs, Deficit, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.
Not if my Iphone has an internal file that shows I went to Walmart then the strip club last Tuesday night.
Maybe focus on Jobs, Deficit, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.
Not if my Iphone has an internal file that shows I went to Walmart then the strip club last Tuesday night.
ljcarr
Jan 4, 05:21 AM
My pride and joy.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/3118434529_012ae33259.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/)
Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3179882976_ba29866369.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/)
Front side 1 (1) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/3118434529_012ae33259.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/)
Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3179882976_ba29866369.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/)
Front side 1 (1) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
lordonuthin
Mar 22, 07:37 PM
Congrats to designed for reaching 1 million.
Eidorian
Aug 25, 12:09 PM
CPU temp is a result of how efficient the heat dissipation is relative to the heat generated by the CPU... so without knowing how the heat dissipation capabilities varied between the two systems you cannot make much of a judgement on the CPU itself.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
Object-X
Nov 27, 03:20 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course. :p
richard.mac
Apr 3, 03:19 AM
That's because the 'control' button acts like a four-finger gesture. Same applies to ctrl+left arrow and ctrl+right arrow.
yeah, but for a keyboard ctrl-up to close is how it logically should be.. and i think Apple agreed. the first time i tried it i instinctively pressed ctrl-up again to close.
anyone know if recent files in a closed app's dock menu are new? thats an awesome feature, like Windows 7's jump lists, which i really like.
yeah, but for a keyboard ctrl-up to close is how it logically should be.. and i think Apple agreed. the first time i tried it i instinctively pressed ctrl-up again to close.
anyone know if recent files in a closed app's dock menu are new? thats an awesome feature, like Windows 7's jump lists, which i really like.
joe.cavers
Feb 23, 03:53 AM
No idea what film that is, but I do spy Handbrake on the MacBook, which looks identical to the one that I just retired. My optical drive in that machine was starting to go, I think. Only thing I've used the one in the new MacBook Pro for is to reinstall the OS after I got it...
Handbrake comes VERY close to destroying my Macbook ha ha, the CPU goes up close to 90 degrees celsius! Terrifying!
Handbrake comes VERY close to destroying my Macbook ha ha, the CPU goes up close to 90 degrees celsius! Terrifying!
emotion
Nov 27, 05:25 PM
The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run.
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
.jpg "cute love quotes and sayings")
jazzbo
Feb 24, 09:42 AM
One small con for diesel is that in cold climates, at the very least you pay a slight premium for winterized diesel, and often you may need to add a de-gelling agent even with "winterized" fuel, or if a cold snap happens before the local dealers switch to winterized. I used to have a VW TDI Beetle and it just shut off one very cold morning in Maine, and had to be hauled to a garage so the fuel line could thaw out. The dealer claimed they made it very clear to me (and everyone) who bought a TDI that they needed to put in the conditioner; this was after commenting on why my engine stopped, "fuel probably gelled, we had 2 others already today." I suggested maybe they needed to emphasize the point a little better to new buyers.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:28 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
backupdrummer
Jul 18, 09:17 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
I completely agree. When it comes to movies I watch 15% of my movies more then once a year and the rest I watch once maybe twice.
I like the a rent/buy model at the price of 3.99/9.99
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
I completely agree. When it comes to movies I watch 15% of my movies more then once a year and the rest I watch once maybe twice.
I like the a rent/buy model at the price of 3.99/9.99
Seryph
Mar 31, 09:44 AM
Talking about new "features": have you noticed the Fuji wallpaper is different?
The new one has clouds at the base...
I'd like to see this too! The old one was pretty bland at the bottom so if this is true I'm glad they changed it.
The new one has clouds at the base...
I'd like to see this too! The old one was pretty bland at the bottom so if this is true I'm glad they changed it.
Transporteur
Feb 26, 12:25 PM
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
Eidorian
Aug 25, 10:26 AM
I can.Only thing holding back better GPU in mini and MacBooks is Intel. Apple needs to stick with IG for cost reasons. Just wating for Intel to start shipping better GPU so they can improve that ASAP. I'm with you guys. Waiting for that to improve as well. But may happen with this refresh. Don't know the IG roadmap so well. Read here the 965 set is delayed until early 2007.
Can anyone here confirm where we're at and going how soon on the Intel Integrated GPU front?We're still going with the GMA950 on the mobile front. The X3000 (965) has made its debut on the desktop platform with Conroe. Still, driver issues and low chipset supply keep it from the mass market. We're not going to see a MOBILE X3000 (965) until Santa Rosa next year. Hopefully Apple can make some good drivers for OS X and the X3000. I don't know anything beyond the 965 in the integrated graphics front.
Can anyone here confirm where we're at and going how soon on the Intel Integrated GPU front?We're still going with the GMA950 on the mobile front. The X3000 (965) has made its debut on the desktop platform with Conroe. Still, driver issues and low chipset supply keep it from the mass market. We're not going to see a MOBILE X3000 (965) until Santa Rosa next year. Hopefully Apple can make some good drivers for OS X and the X3000. I don't know anything beyond the 965 in the integrated graphics front.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
milo
Jul 19, 04:49 PM
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels
That's exactly what I meant. I still think that's very impressive.
That's exactly what I meant. I still think that's very impressive.
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 27, 04:57 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
I dunno. I thought Consume Reports existed to INFORM consumers of good and bad things about consumer products and then that would help you make an informed decision based on that information. I never knew you were supposed to "rely on their advice" by buying one product and only one product because they told you to like some kind of freaking lemming. I don't buy a Toyota Camry just because they gave it a good review, but I do want to know if it has potential braking or accelerator pedal issues (whether caused by a mat or something else) before I buy it and that is helpful information to a normal person who wants to know the truth and not just marketing hype from Apple. If I wanted marketing hype, I would go to the Toyota web site, not Consumer Reports. I would think this sort of think would be obvious to most people, but then we have quite a lot of cantaloupes in this world that actually believe that Fox News actually is fair and unbiased and believe every bit of Republican propaganda nonsense that comes out of their mouths on that station so I guess you can't count on people having common sense or being able to judge anything with their own brains instead of having someone plant it there for them. :confused:
I dunno. I thought Consume Reports existed to INFORM consumers of good and bad things about consumer products and then that would help you make an informed decision based on that information. I never knew you were supposed to "rely on their advice" by buying one product and only one product because they told you to like some kind of freaking lemming. I don't buy a Toyota Camry just because they gave it a good review, but I do want to know if it has potential braking or accelerator pedal issues (whether caused by a mat or something else) before I buy it and that is helpful information to a normal person who wants to know the truth and not just marketing hype from Apple. If I wanted marketing hype, I would go to the Toyota web site, not Consumer Reports. I would think this sort of think would be obvious to most people, but then we have quite a lot of cantaloupes in this world that actually believe that Fox News actually is fair and unbiased and believe every bit of Republican propaganda nonsense that comes out of their mouths on that station so I guess you can't count on people having common sense or being able to judge anything with their own brains instead of having someone plant it there for them. :confused:
milo
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
guez
Sep 7, 02:52 PM
I have been a Mac user since 1986. I'm not a superuser or a gamer, but the one thing I have learned is to avoid models with too much built-in obsolescence (e.g. my old firewire-less, low-resolution clamshell iBook and the late-model CD-burner-less white iBook G3 that replaced it, not to mention the Powerbook 150 [agh!], Mac Classic [aaagggh!], etc.). Except for the lack of built-in DVD capability, the lampshade 700 MHZ G4 iMac has been a great investment.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
GregA
Dec 31, 11:08 PM
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.True, as long as there is a payment model that works too (for stuff like HBO On Demand). I would prefer to have a single bill for all subscriptions, but if I'm only watching a couple then I could pay them directly.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
bmx433
Jan 12, 05:04 PM
just because they used Air in their banner doesn't mean its called MacBook Air.. Apple is not stupid.. its all about slim and light..
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
that's a good point. i don't remember if they use key words in their teases. what was the tease for the ipod touch? did it have one and if so, was the word "touch" ever mentioned?
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
that's a good point. i don't remember if they use key words in their teases. what was the tease for the ipod touch? did it have one and if so, was the word "touch" ever mentioned?
carlos700
Oct 23, 11:36 PM
Intel Core 2 Duo T7600 Processor at NewEgg.com can be had for a little bit over $650.
viewfly
Sep 20, 07:17 PM
I hold strong on my opinion of Consumer Reports too.
I took their advice on the best vacuum cleaner to buy, some years ago.
I took their advice on the best vacuum cleaner to buy, some years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment