DocNYz
Apr 24, 03:15 PM
I just hope they manage to keep it as cool and quiet as our current mba 11" (1,6 Ghz C2D)... I prefer quiet computing over ultraspeed in a mba, for shure!
Yeah it should be, there's no hard drive to make noise and unless you keep it on a stove or do insanely heavy processing you shouldn't hear the fan either.
Yeah it should be, there's no hard drive to make noise and unless you keep it on a stove or do insanely heavy processing you shouldn't hear the fan either.
mac jones
Apr 4, 12:22 PM
I'll tell you what has happened here.
Scum bags messed with the wrong dude
R.I.P.
Scum bags messed with the wrong dude
R.I.P.
MattyMac
Aug 28, 12:30 PM
September and October are usually greeeeeeeaaaaaaaatttt months for apple!:D !:D !:D
evilgEEk
Oct 12, 01:09 PM
A red nano would look pretty hot. That might just be enough motivation for me to finally buy one.
Of course convincing the wife to let me buy one, now that's different. ;)
Of course convincing the wife to let me buy one, now that's different. ;)
mclihah2
Sep 13, 06:22 AM
I ordered a black 80GB Ipod last night, after approval from the wife.
I had a bad feeling about it, and promtly cancelled this morning.
My current Ipod is a 60GB Photo, and I have been looking to upgrade to video for some time, but I can't shake the feeling that this update was very minor, with a price reduction thrown into the equation.
I reckon, macworld in January there will be the iTV (or whatever it's called), and a new 6G widescreen iPod, with a few more movie companies thrown in.
So I think I'll ride it out until then.
I had a bad feeling about it, and promtly cancelled this morning.
My current Ipod is a 60GB Photo, and I have been looking to upgrade to video for some time, but I can't shake the feeling that this update was very minor, with a price reduction thrown into the equation.
I reckon, macworld in January there will be the iTV (or whatever it's called), and a new 6G widescreen iPod, with a few more movie companies thrown in.
So I think I'll ride it out until then.
whyrichard
Aug 28, 12:49 PM
Hello!
I was thinking of buying an intel core solo and dropping in a processor that is the best i can get for it to use it as a rendering machine.....
.... should i bother waiting for the new mac mini's or should i go ahead and buy a cheapo core solo? especially since they would be sold for much less.....
thanks,
r.
I was thinking of buying an intel core solo and dropping in a processor that is the best i can get for it to use it as a rendering machine.....
.... should i bother waiting for the new mac mini's or should i go ahead and buy a cheapo core solo? especially since they would be sold for much less.....
thanks,
r.
Doctor Q
Aug 23, 06:10 PM
You seem to be unfamiliar with our court system. This case could have dragged on for YEARS, and cost Apple a TON of money--possibly far more than 100 Million.I know the bills add up quickly, but just how much does an active case cost? That's a lot of zeroes!
G5Unit
Sep 4, 08:00 PM
WO0t! PowerBook G5 tuesday after next!
Buschmaster
Oct 28, 09:04 AM
It isn't like I "hate the world" or anything, even though reading through this thread some people might thing so just by my saying this...
If I payed all that money to get into that expo (it is as expensive as the ones in the States, right?) and someone was being annoying? I'd want them gone, as well. We just got rid of all solicitation on my floor at college, and it isn't like every candidate who stopped by I hated, but they were sure hoping they could make it that way. And the vegans... man do they not give up. I wanted to start heating hot dogs in the microwave just so they'd get out!!
If I'm enjoying myself at the time they come in, they can change some of that. And I don't know the whole story, but if people were complaining about them, then they should be kicked out.
Maybe they're still just searching for Elaine Bennis...? They never leave a message undelivered, I hear.
If I payed all that money to get into that expo (it is as expensive as the ones in the States, right?) and someone was being annoying? I'd want them gone, as well. We just got rid of all solicitation on my floor at college, and it isn't like every candidate who stopped by I hated, but they were sure hoping they could make it that way. And the vegans... man do they not give up. I wanted to start heating hot dogs in the microwave just so they'd get out!!
If I'm enjoying myself at the time they come in, they can change some of that. And I don't know the whole story, but if people were complaining about them, then they should be kicked out.
Maybe they're still just searching for Elaine Bennis...? They never leave a message undelivered, I hear.
Bomino
Apr 25, 02:06 AM
Uh no I didn't. I just interpreted the law. As someone implied earlier, this could all be a ruse. I might not have done anything I said in this thread. No one here can know 100% for sure, because you did not witness the event I claim occurred. That simple fact, in addition to any record searching anyone did without a warrant (which would be an invasion of privacy) would get anything I say in this thread thrown out of court faster than you could blink.
-Don
fair enough, let me reword that: you just admitted that the person going 90mph, intentionally cuts off the other, and slams breaks in this hypothetical scenario is the one thats doing the wrong. give me a break.
EDIT: I'm not saying any of this is usable in court (even though i would), Im just saying that throughout this entire thread, your telling everyone how right you are, yet in the post i quoted, you admitted that your actions are wrong.
-Don
fair enough, let me reword that: you just admitted that the person going 90mph, intentionally cuts off the other, and slams breaks in this hypothetical scenario is the one thats doing the wrong. give me a break.
EDIT: I'm not saying any of this is usable in court (even though i would), Im just saying that throughout this entire thread, your telling everyone how right you are, yet in the post i quoted, you admitted that your actions are wrong.
bommai
Sep 19, 04:07 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
rstansby
Nov 13, 01:52 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.
MacRumors
Nov 13, 12:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
In yet another example of a high-profile developer team stepping back from Apple's App Store, Rogue Amoeba today announced (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/20091113AFSTPost.php) in a lengthy blog post that it will no longer develop applications for the iPhone following an extended run-in with App Store reviewers over a bug fix update to the company's Airfoil Speakers Touch (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/17/airfoil-speakers-touch-now-available-in-app-store/) application. The application allows users to stream any audio content from a host computer directly to an iPhone or iPod touch.
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.
While Apple's objections to the use of Apple-owned images in iPhone applications are well-known, Rogue Amoeba's situation was rather unique in that the images did not originate from the iPhone application itself, but were being sent from the host computer sending audio to the device. Those images were generated using Mac OS X tools specifically designed to aid developers in this process.As you can see, Airfoil Speakers Touch displays an image of the sending Mac, with a screenshot showing the source application. If you're sending from an iMac with Safari as your source (as pictured), it shows your iMac running Safari. If you're sending from a MacBook Pro, it shows a MacBook Pro, and so on. These computer images are provided by Mac OS X itself, using a public function expressly for this purpose.
We also show the source application's icon - Safari in the above example. This icon also comes from a public function provided by Apple as part of Mac OS X. These functions are expressly made to enable developers to get this artwork, and use it just as we are.After multiple rejections, including one involving a sympathetic Apple employee who attempted to assist with the situation, Rogue Amoeba was finally able to satisfy Apple's reviewers by stripping out the "Apple-owned" images and substituting in an image of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo linked to an explanation page (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/iphone/ping/eff.php) detailing the company's difficulties with Apple.
The lengthy and frustrating experience has clearly led the developers to reevaluate their efforts for the iPhone platform, and they have decided to step back from further App Store development.The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we're adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we're focusing on the Mac.
Article Link: Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
In yet another example of a high-profile developer team stepping back from Apple's App Store, Rogue Amoeba today announced (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/20091113AFSTPost.php) in a lengthy blog post that it will no longer develop applications for the iPhone following an extended run-in with App Store reviewers over a bug fix update to the company's Airfoil Speakers Touch (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/17/airfoil-speakers-touch-now-available-in-app-store/) application. The application allows users to stream any audio content from a host computer directly to an iPhone or iPod touch.
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.
While Apple's objections to the use of Apple-owned images in iPhone applications are well-known, Rogue Amoeba's situation was rather unique in that the images did not originate from the iPhone application itself, but were being sent from the host computer sending audio to the device. Those images were generated using Mac OS X tools specifically designed to aid developers in this process.As you can see, Airfoil Speakers Touch displays an image of the sending Mac, with a screenshot showing the source application. If you're sending from an iMac with Safari as your source (as pictured), it shows your iMac running Safari. If you're sending from a MacBook Pro, it shows a MacBook Pro, and so on. These computer images are provided by Mac OS X itself, using a public function expressly for this purpose.
We also show the source application's icon - Safari in the above example. This icon also comes from a public function provided by Apple as part of Mac OS X. These functions are expressly made to enable developers to get this artwork, and use it just as we are.After multiple rejections, including one involving a sympathetic Apple employee who attempted to assist with the situation, Rogue Amoeba was finally able to satisfy Apple's reviewers by stripping out the "Apple-owned" images and substituting in an image of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo linked to an explanation page (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/iphone/ping/eff.php) detailing the company's difficulties with Apple.
The lengthy and frustrating experience has clearly led the developers to reevaluate their efforts for the iPhone platform, and they have decided to step back from further App Store development.The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we're adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we're focusing on the Mac.
Article Link: Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:43 AM
What? I don't get it.
You cannot CUT and paste in SL, only COPY and paste using the built in OS shortcuts.
I hate having to open two folders just to drag a file to MOVE it, so I had to pay $4 in the MAC App Store to get that functionality...
You cannot CUT and paste in SL, only COPY and paste using the built in OS shortcuts.
I hate having to open two folders just to drag a file to MOVE it, so I had to pay $4 in the MAC App Store to get that functionality...
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
Marx55
Apr 22, 02:24 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 08:34 AM
Anyone know when we might see an update to the MacBook (not MBP)???
Not on the 24th. Later in the fall maybe?
Not on the 24th. Later in the fall maybe?
lilo777
Apr 19, 04:08 PM
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
I doubt those contracts last longer than one year and this is how long it will probably take for this lawsuit to get to court hearing. Samsung will be in a great bargaining position then.
I doubt those contracts last longer than one year and this is how long it will probably take for this lawsuit to get to court hearing. Samsung will be in a great bargaining position then.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Wow, you people...
What do you mean, "you people"
http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg
What do you mean, "you people"
http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg
superleccy
Sep 4, 07:23 PM
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.
Well I'd like it. I have an iBook G4 hooked up to a 250Gb LaCie drive, on which I store stuff I've pulled from Elgato EyeTV2.x. They sit upstairs. My TV, on the other hand, is downstairs. I can't be bothered carrying my Laptop AND my LaCie AND their power supplies downstairs every time I want to watch a show. I want to sit in my living room, and browse my recorded content without having to physically touch my Mac.
I don't want to buy a Mac Mini (and then pay twice for every subsequent release OS X).
And then hey, I guess I could do all the other Front Row stuff too. Sorted.
A "Video AirPort Exprerss" is the way to go... come on Apple!
Regds
SL
Well I'd like it. I have an iBook G4 hooked up to a 250Gb LaCie drive, on which I store stuff I've pulled from Elgato EyeTV2.x. They sit upstairs. My TV, on the other hand, is downstairs. I can't be bothered carrying my Laptop AND my LaCie AND their power supplies downstairs every time I want to watch a show. I want to sit in my living room, and browse my recorded content without having to physically touch my Mac.
I don't want to buy a Mac Mini (and then pay twice for every subsequent release OS X).
And then hey, I guess I could do all the other Front Row stuff too. Sorted.
A "Video AirPort Exprerss" is the way to go... come on Apple!
Regds
SL
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:26 AM
His name is Butters? :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
Peikko
Apr 30, 08:33 PM
MSFT has not had a real hit in forever.
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
rstansby
Apr 22, 02:20 AM
So Apple's method could be more efficient their side, offering a spotify type model where everyone accesses the same iTunes purchased track (except this time they own it) instead of Amazon's where each indivdual track is stored in their "digital locker"?
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
It's not really an original idea. Lala was doing this last year, until Apple bought them and shut them down.
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
It's not really an original idea. Lala was doing this last year, until Apple bought them and shut them down.
donlphi
Sep 5, 08:56 PM
What the hell are you talking about? I don't know what HD trailers you were downloading, but they look fantastic on my screen. Also, yes, some of them take forever if you're on a slower connection but it sounds as though everyone's banking on broadband these days; it has become the rule, not the exception.
I downloaded a couple trailers and watched them on two different displays, and they were not "Fantastic"... perhaps fantastic compared to watching the low res version in full screen mode. I am talking about blowing it up and filling the screen with the trailer. It skipped frames, picture froze once in a while.
Either way, what are you going to do with a HD version of the movie on your computer? Stream it onto your TV from the room next door? If it's that slow with a 2 minute teaser on an Apple Store connection, and my home Comcast connection (which is generally slow - hurry up USB EVDO CARD!!!), I don't see people wanting to buy it, other than the fact that it is a new Apple product.
I certainly didn't run rigorous tests, just tried watching the new Transformers trailer, clicked the HD version of it, blew it up to full screen, and watched the chunks of video stop everywhere.
If you want to see TRUE HD, get comcast or any other Digital cable provider and watch the HD feed of NBC for a minute. THAT is what HD should look like. If it doesn't look clear, what's the point?
with that said, here is a picture of the new video HD video iPOD. This girl is carrying the ipod unit in her left hand and holding onto the 2 TB Hard Drive on her shoulder.
The bag comes in 3 different colors, which is nice, blue, pink, and titanium.
56728
I downloaded a couple trailers and watched them on two different displays, and they were not "Fantastic"... perhaps fantastic compared to watching the low res version in full screen mode. I am talking about blowing it up and filling the screen with the trailer. It skipped frames, picture froze once in a while.
Either way, what are you going to do with a HD version of the movie on your computer? Stream it onto your TV from the room next door? If it's that slow with a 2 minute teaser on an Apple Store connection, and my home Comcast connection (which is generally slow - hurry up USB EVDO CARD!!!), I don't see people wanting to buy it, other than the fact that it is a new Apple product.
I certainly didn't run rigorous tests, just tried watching the new Transformers trailer, clicked the HD version of it, blew it up to full screen, and watched the chunks of video stop everywhere.
If you want to see TRUE HD, get comcast or any other Digital cable provider and watch the HD feed of NBC for a minute. THAT is what HD should look like. If it doesn't look clear, what's the point?
with that said, here is a picture of the new video HD video iPOD. This girl is carrying the ipod unit in her left hand and holding onto the 2 TB Hard Drive on her shoulder.
The bag comes in 3 different colors, which is nice, blue, pink, and titanium.
56728
0 comments:
Post a Comment