Piggie
Apr 9, 10:15 AM
Until Apple give us some physical controls (buttons, Joysticks etc) for use in games that need it, this is simply never ever going to work.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 13, 07:16 AM
This thread reads like a bunch of wanna-be's crying for attention. All this talk that real professionals will be disappointed. First off, if this is a conference for production professionals, and you weren't there, kinda already makes you sound like an also-ran. Not to say that every quality professional would be at one event, but if you are truly a professional, you'd know that pointless pontification about a product you've never seen and are judging based on a series of quotes from a one hour presentation isnt very respectable.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
bigandy
Mar 20, 09:08 AM
anyone got a link to Mac PyMusique downloads or is it Windows only?
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
tveric
Mar 18, 04:58 PM
I would just like to point out that, sort of, this thread and topic are a repeat of this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
darkplanets
Mar 14, 09:19 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
And...?
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
citizenzen
Mar 27, 07:37 PM
What does "anti-gay" mean?
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Eidorian
Oct 28, 02:07 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
wkhahn
Sep 20, 10:34 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
logandzwon
May 2, 10:37 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
smetvid
Apr 13, 04:32 AM
People you seem to be missing the point that the $299.00 price is for FCP and not the entire studio package. Remember FCP was only one of many applications in FCS. I would expect the other applications to be similar priced in the app store. So in the end I think you may end up paying just as much.
What I did find interesting is no mention of upgrade pricing for existing FCS users. How will they handle upgrades per application?
Remember for current users we paid a small feee to upgrade the entire studio package.
As an editor I can say this is pretty interesting. I would expect the same level of precision we are used to now under the hood. I think the main focus of this demonstration was to show the new features and how easy FCP can be now for the non tech people.
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
You might as well kiss Avid goodbye as well. I'm sure there will be die hards for the old way of editing but if FCPX can hang on to the precision of a pro editor without the complex overhead then Apple has just sent Avid yet another major blow. Adobe and Vegas are still a bit safe since they had a lot of these features for awhile now. In fact I see a lot of similarities with Sony Vegas. To me FCPX is the way Vegas should have been from what I have seen so far.
Perhaps Avid will finally wake up and overhaul their entire interface the way they should have 4 years ago already. Avid had the opportunity when they bought Pinnacle Liquid to have a NLE with background rendering and other newage features but they killed it in favor of their dinosaur. The new FCPX is what Liquid could have been if development would have kept going.
What I did find interesting is no mention of upgrade pricing for existing FCS users. How will they handle upgrades per application?
Remember for current users we paid a small feee to upgrade the entire studio package.
As an editor I can say this is pretty interesting. I would expect the same level of precision we are used to now under the hood. I think the main focus of this demonstration was to show the new features and how easy FCP can be now for the non tech people.
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
You might as well kiss Avid goodbye as well. I'm sure there will be die hards for the old way of editing but if FCPX can hang on to the precision of a pro editor without the complex overhead then Apple has just sent Avid yet another major blow. Adobe and Vegas are still a bit safe since they had a lot of these features for awhile now. In fact I see a lot of similarities with Sony Vegas. To me FCPX is the way Vegas should have been from what I have seen so far.
Perhaps Avid will finally wake up and overhaul their entire interface the way they should have 4 years ago already. Avid had the opportunity when they bought Pinnacle Liquid to have a NLE with background rendering and other newage features but they killed it in favor of their dinosaur. The new FCPX is what Liquid could have been if development would have kept going.
DaftRyan
Apr 9, 12:28 AM
I would love to have a conversation with the headhunters who managed to pull this one off. Talk about talent.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:44 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
thogs_cave
Jul 12, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
No comments:
Post a Comment