A.Fairhead
Jul 18, 04:11 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.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
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.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
Bevz
Mar 25, 04:09 PM
This is exactly the kind of stuff I hoped they'd be doing with the TV output :)
One of the many reasons I bought an iPad 2... Which hopefully I'm picking up on Monday :) it's gonna be a good summer :)
One of the many reasons I bought an iPad 2... Which hopefully I'm picking up on Monday :) it's gonna be a good summer :)
Chris Bangle
Aug 16, 09:36 AM
I think were well overdue for ipod update...
Is this the longest period of time without and update.
Shuffle is a year and 8 months old,
nano is 11 months,
and the 5g is 10 months.
The thing is that the competition is able to undercut apple prices alot, i found a 2gb toshiba thing on amazon for £69 yesterday. A 2gb nano is £130, and thats alot of money for 2 tiny gigabytes.
Back in the day 4gb cost me £130.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000ES002Q/026-7871897-8334857?v=glance&n=560798
Is this the longest period of time without and update.
Shuffle is a year and 8 months old,
nano is 11 months,
and the 5g is 10 months.
The thing is that the competition is able to undercut apple prices alot, i found a 2gb toshiba thing on amazon for £69 yesterday. A 2gb nano is £130, and thats alot of money for 2 tiny gigabytes.
Back in the day 4gb cost me £130.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000ES002Q/026-7871897-8334857?v=glance&n=560798
sim667
Feb 8, 10:06 AM
Oh dear chaps, mine looks almost feeble compared to your big American monster cars!
Thats why I havent put a pic of my car up either...
On the brightside at least we can go round corners :cool:
Thats why I havent put a pic of my car up either...
On the brightside at least we can go round corners :cool:
OttawaGuy
Aug 24, 06:47 PM
minis sure seem to garner a lot of goodwill. :)
DrFrankTM
Aug 25, 09:23 AM
am I right in thinking that there is still no way to do extended desktop (two monitors displaying different stuff) on a Mini?
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
SactoGuy18
Jan 5, 09:58 AM
I saw the January 5, 2007 multipage flyer ad for Fry's Electronics and noticed that there are no ads for any Apple iPod model. This is VERY strange considering that previous Friday multipage flyer ads prominently include iPod models.
Makes you wonder is Apple going to do a "mid-cycle" refresh of the 5.5G iPod and 2G iPod nano, along with introducing the new "true" video iPod.
Makes you wonder is Apple going to do a "mid-cycle" refresh of the 5.5G iPod and 2G iPod nano, along with introducing the new "true" video iPod.
Multimedia
Aug 25, 03:27 AM
I dont think they will go core 2 yet, the mini is entry level, they will rather upgrade the macbook and the imac first before they go for the core 2 in the mini. That sayd, why not keep the solo and lower the price (3 mini models maybe), for many the reason why they arent switching is because of price, and with a lot of people only doing light office/home stuff the solo is good enough.
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
.jpg "david beckam tattoo. david")
oMc
Feb 28, 02:41 PM
@benjayman2 : very nice setup.
tkidBOSTON
Sep 1, 12:01 PM
I think this would be great if you could wall mount it and use it as a TV/ Media Center. I dont know if I'd like anything larger than my current 20" iMac sitting on a desk 2 ft from my face.
Just my $0.02.
Just my $0.02.
Veg
Feb 25, 02:00 PM
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac50/tadziodlu/IMG_1442.jpg
-Ken-
Mar 24, 01:02 PM
Excellent, now I can upgrade my Hackintosh's GPU.
DualShock
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 31, 03:28 PM
The American obsession with WWII simply isn't healthy.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
macfan881
Sep 9, 04:48 PM
I also pray That the will have family guy and simpsons on The Tv Store Tuesday i mean they have fox and adult swim i dont see why they would hold back for family guy i bet you to that simpsons would be the next dl series on itunes also if they put it up along with faimly guy
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 02:45 PM
But the damn things are noisy, and the exhaust smells really bad.
That may be true of the huge American diesel truck engines, but go examine a new VW, BMW or Mercedes diesel and you'll see that this is just not the case anymore. They sound a little different, smell a little different, but not worse than gasoline - it's just that we are so used to gas engines that everything else is assumed to be worse somehow.
That may be true of the huge American diesel truck engines, but go examine a new VW, BMW or Mercedes diesel and you'll see that this is just not the case anymore. They sound a little different, smell a little different, but not worse than gasoline - it's just that we are so used to gas engines that everything else is assumed to be worse somehow.
Stridder44
Sep 7, 04:17 AM
Holy eff. What if they changed iMovie's purpose? For managing content (music & movies): iTunes and iMovie. For creating/editing content: Garageband and "Showtime" (or whatever speculated new name that was).
It makes so much more sense, even if it would be confusing at first.
It makes so much more sense, even if it would be confusing at first.
polsons
Jan 11, 07:20 AM
As a fellow Australian imac_japan i'll support your enthusiasm, but as one who is old enough to have actually witnessed the history of Apple I think you are about to be enormously disappointed
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
petsy
Mar 24, 12:07 PM
Woulda been funnier if the conversation looked like this:
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my HTC Hero
I'd like to see a new Classic though, preferably before summer. I'm out of space and there's 40+ gigs in my iTunes that I can't sync to my pod. Don't want to go the whole summer without an updated pod.
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my HTC Hero
I'd like to see a new Classic though, preferably before summer. I'm out of space and there's 40+ gigs in my iTunes that I can't sync to my pod. Don't want to go the whole summer without an updated pod.
hellomoto4
Apr 1, 12:32 AM
New mute image: http://cl.ly/5gHn
jav6454
Mar 24, 10:27 PM
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Cleve
Jan 11, 08:29 PM
Induction charging
http://9to5mac.com/macbook-air-2453564654
http://9to5mac.com/macbook-air-2453564654
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 26, 12:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
ascendent
Mar 23, 04:35 PM
Sure some people see 220 GB as �too much� space but � it�s not all about songs only -- a high capacity iPod is ideal for taking movies on the road. I travel with my Classic and an Apple cable. Plug it into the TV and *bingo* I have the movies or TV programs I want to watch on the big screen. You can use it for displaying photos as well. This is an often overlooked benefit of the Classic�s capacity.
I would buy a 220 in a heartbeat and just upgrade more of my music collection to Lossless resolution. Having empty space also removes a major psychological barrier for me in purchasing more liberally from ITunes (even with their less-than-ideal 256 resolution) because I want to NOT have to manage what is on my iPod. Just put it all there and always have what I want. More space is a plus for keeping folks purchasing new stuff.
-- and I think a lot more people will soon see the value of converting their CDs to digital for use with their home audio system -- but only if they have the memory available for high enough resolution for it to sound good.
I would buy a 220 in a heartbeat and just upgrade more of my music collection to Lossless resolution. Having empty space also removes a major psychological barrier for me in purchasing more liberally from ITunes (even with their less-than-ideal 256 resolution) because I want to NOT have to manage what is on my iPod. Just put it all there and always have what I want. More space is a plus for keeping folks purchasing new stuff.
-- and I think a lot more people will soon see the value of converting their CDs to digital for use with their home audio system -- but only if they have the memory available for high enough resolution for it to sound good.
