2nyRiggz
Sep 12, 02:13 PM
So is this ipod still a 5G or 5.1G.....well this ipod is not the big news of the day.
Bless
Bless
vitaboy
Aug 24, 12:01 PM
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
Dan55304
Oct 27, 10:18 AM
You got to love disruptive, violent behavior from "peace" groups. Sure makes you respect them doesn't it. You can always use paper and pencil if you don't want to use a computer. Oh, wait, harvesting a renewable resource like trees is out. Give me a break.
hehe299792458
Apr 11, 07:51 AM
I am confused. If your Mac is networked, why not just share your music folder on your network so any computer etc can play the music from the shared music folder on the mac?
I think it's a matter of push streaming vs pull
I think it's a matter of push streaming vs pull
vvebsta
Mar 23, 05:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
mkrishnan
Sep 19, 04:19 PM
I disagree. Dolby Digital is no longer reserved for rich �ber-geeks. Many "regular Joes" have a Dolby Digital setup now, and you can get a Dolby Digital receiver (all 5 normal channels powered) for under $100.
I think you have to draw a distinction between uber-geeks, also, and people who know what they like but who are not necessarily technophiles. The latter market has always been a core market to Apple. What I mean by that is that I don't think that the cost of the collateral equipment would stop Apple -- say only offering support for nicer TVs -- but I do think complexity could potentially stop them.
Even in this thread, it's clear that the switch from the relatively contained hardware world of Apple Macs and iPods to the TV world is going to be very complicated and confusing to a lot of people. While we're at our Macs, we have the luxury of "It Just Works." With all the different audio and video standards and so on in the TV world, it's not so simple at all.
I think you have to draw a distinction between uber-geeks, also, and people who know what they like but who are not necessarily technophiles. The latter market has always been a core market to Apple. What I mean by that is that I don't think that the cost of the collateral equipment would stop Apple -- say only offering support for nicer TVs -- but I do think complexity could potentially stop them.
Even in this thread, it's clear that the switch from the relatively contained hardware world of Apple Macs and iPods to the TV world is going to be very complicated and confusing to a lot of people. While we're at our Macs, we have the luxury of "It Just Works." With all the different audio and video standards and so on in the TV world, it's not so simple at all.
BWhaler
Sep 4, 11:39 PM
This seems contradictory.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
emaja
Apr 22, 11:31 AM
Well no, not in the true sense of the word, but you do have the data and can use the data elsewhere.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
I was just pointing this out, but I agree that it could be something that was easier to take away if there was no physical media.
I am stuck between the two worlds of physical and digital media. I prefer to hold something in my hand since it makes me feel like I own something. As soon as I get the disk home I rip it in lossless into iTunes and put it in a box after tagging it meticulously. I enjoy the convenience, but not ready to take that full leap.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
I was just pointing this out, but I agree that it could be something that was easier to take away if there was no physical media.
I am stuck between the two worlds of physical and digital media. I prefer to hold something in my hand since it makes me feel like I own something. As soon as I get the disk home I rip it in lossless into iTunes and put it in a box after tagging it meticulously. I enjoy the convenience, but not ready to take that full leap.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 09:29 AM
What is it with some of you guys? Does hope spring eternal, or what!
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
What's with us? We want C2D MBP's. That's all.
Though I'm very interested to see what's going to be announced at this event, outside of MBP's.
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
What's with us? We want C2D MBP's. That's all.
Though I'm very interested to see what's going to be announced at this event, outside of MBP's.
fawlty
Sep 13, 09:36 PM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
jofarmer
Sep 12, 03:43 PM
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
macintel4me
Sep 4, 07:05 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
yodaxl7
Mar 29, 11:57 AM
They are expecting no adoptions of iPhone or android from symbian owners and we would abandon our phones for windows in 4 years. NOT GONNa Happen!!!
igazza
Mar 22, 11:32 PM
Build to order 6-core i7 would be nice apple
callme
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
If you don't want to get killed, don't be a criminal and don't carry guns.
You get what you give.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
If you don't want to get killed, don't be a criminal and don't carry guns.
You get what you give.
SPUY767
Sep 10, 08:16 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
The current 900$ dells don't even come with a Core based processor, so I doubt that a "Core-Quadro" is in the future for any 900$ dell. Bottom line will always be, most of the time, you get exactly what you pay for.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
The current 900$ dells don't even come with a Core based processor, so I doubt that a "Core-Quadro" is in the future for any 900$ dell. Bottom line will always be, most of the time, you get exactly what you pay for.
Machead III
Sep 3, 09:25 AM
Well, I just sold my iMac, so I'm coming to you all from the tiny screen of my Nokia N70.
I'm looking to aquire a MacBook. Here in the UK we have our iPod rebate deal until mid-October, which will effectively knock the price of a Nano on eBay off the price of my machine.
What would you say, will there be MacBooks before mid-October? I don't want to wait any longer than that. Should I bother waiting or buy now?
I'm looking to aquire a MacBook. Here in the UK we have our iPod rebate deal until mid-October, which will effectively knock the price of a Nano on eBay off the price of my machine.
What would you say, will there be MacBooks before mid-October? I don't want to wait any longer than that. Should I bother waiting or buy now?
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 06:57 PM
im so tired about apple having partnerships with groups i dont like. to each his own but why does U2 have to keep pushing their own ipod, i thought the last one sucked. give me a band i actually like
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
needthephone
Oct 27, 08:04 AM
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 04:06 PM
This isn't the content of music on iTunes isn't DRM protected, furthermore I still own the content (even the DRM) as I can do exactly what I want with it. I can back it up, move it between devices, and have absolutely no dependence on sustainable bandwidth, company's servers, and policy changes revolving around the use of the server.
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
who is to say you can't do the same with the cloud service? why can't you download ur music from the cloud to your computer?
Why is it now OK to be a backup service? they are still going to have your data....why does it matter if it's your primary version or a backup?
There is a reason why this has come about. if it was so stupid it wouldn't be happening. People can be really weird about "owning" things. I have friends who collect thousands of dvds. wow, to view 1-2 times. what a waste.
I guess the music and documents i have in idisk i don't own either right?
I was referring to netflix bc the content one may like is there. maybe not all of it, but with the apple option on the cloud you'd have that option to load what you want to listen to.....aka you would choose the playlist.
If netflix had that option for movies. Why would you spend thousands of dollars buying dvds when you can have it at a subscription price in the cloud?
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
who is to say you can't do the same with the cloud service? why can't you download ur music from the cloud to your computer?
Why is it now OK to be a backup service? they are still going to have your data....why does it matter if it's your primary version or a backup?
There is a reason why this has come about. if it was so stupid it wouldn't be happening. People can be really weird about "owning" things. I have friends who collect thousands of dvds. wow, to view 1-2 times. what a waste.
I guess the music and documents i have in idisk i don't own either right?
I was referring to netflix bc the content one may like is there. maybe not all of it, but with the apple option on the cloud you'd have that option to load what you want to listen to.....aka you would choose the playlist.
If netflix had that option for movies. Why would you spend thousands of dollars buying dvds when you can have it at a subscription price in the cloud?
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 07:21 PM
You're telling me drunk driving is on the same level as eating or talking on a cell phone?
Yes.
The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.
Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html#ixzz1HTJlDgSO
Yes.
The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.
Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html#ixzz1HTJlDgSO
john1620b
May 3, 10:14 AM
Sweet...wish there were two Thunderbolt ports on the 21.5-inch as well.
Northgrove
Apr 28, 06:09 PM
Microsoft is doing OK, now with Office and Windows 7. All of these are quite major successes for them. Windows Phone 7 still seems a bit shaky to me, but with the Office suite and Windows doing well now, they're OK. That they're beat by Apple is simply because Apple is doing far better than OK - not that MS is doing poorly. MS has their core products doing well -- Apple is grabbing large parts of markets, hardware (iPhone, iPad) as well as software (iOS). Both at once, when they've been big in neither before. That difference is sure to show up in the revenue. :)
Torrijos
Apr 25, 06:34 PM
Here begins the age of LiquidMetal :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment