SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:18 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
Peace
Sep 5, 06:01 PM
What if you downloaded the movie to your Macbook Pro and went on a business trip? Or you only own a laptop?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:19 PM
Right... but your still using iTunes, an Apple 'application'. I think I would understand your point and your point would be made clearer if you showed a Windows program/software or any third party program/software that describes the file type as an "Application." If there are any, because I haven't used a windows in a few years. I'd boot up the old PC and check myself but I rather not.
I think he used iTunes as an example because it is something that Mac users would be familliar with as opposed to some other application that you would look at and say "WTF is that?"
Anyway, an .exe in Windows is refered to as an "application". A "program" is a collection of files that includes one or more .exe and possibly other files. This has been the case since Windows XP (possibly earlier).
I think he used iTunes as an example because it is something that Mac users would be familliar with as opposed to some other application that you would look at and say "WTF is that?"
Anyway, an .exe in Windows is refered to as an "application". A "program" is a collection of files that includes one or more .exe and possibly other files. This has been the case since Windows XP (possibly earlier).
harry20larry
Apr 11, 04:21 AM
Been wanting this for a while. I have a windows PC just doing nothing, if I can turn it into an Airport Express like device, can have music going throughout the house.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Am3822
Sep 14, 09:26 AM
The merom/mbp thing is turning to be the macrumors' production of Godot.
oootle
Sep 5, 03:21 PM
Showtime (with it having a capital S) could be the name of a new application?
or maybe not, fun to speculate anyway lol
or maybe not, fun to speculate anyway lol
dernhelm
Sep 19, 01:35 PM
In addition, Iger said the company expects over $50 million in revenue over the first year of the program
Hmm. Lets see $1M in a week, 52 weeks in a year, yup - that's about $50M. Wow - that dude is a genius!
Hmm. Lets see $1M in a week, 52 weeks in a year, yup - that's about $50M. Wow - that dude is a genius!
QuarterSwede
Sep 15, 06:56 PM
The biggest reason phones suck today is because the interfaces are horrible (SE's being the best of them all). Motorola's phones are nice but their UI's are awful. What I am expecting from Apple is an easy to use phone that looks great and has, nothing less than, an excellent UI. And of course it'll work with iSync ... that's just obvious.
gugy
Sep 14, 11:06 AM
Here we go again,
High expectations for another event.
Just take the event this week as a lesson.
Showtime, we got:
Movie Store
Update ipods
ITV.
All related to Itunes and audio video experience. That's why was called "Showtime"
Now we have a new event coming up at a Photokina, photographers event.
What should we expect?
Aperture update and maybe something else relate to Photographers needs.
That's all folks!
Stop dreaming about Iphone, Mac Book Pro etc. it won't happen.
MPB's will be update on a Tuesday just like the Imac was couple weeks back. No special event for that.
Iphone if happens will be either have their own event or at MWSF.
Then later people get upset with Apple and don't understand why. Reality check guys.
High expectations for another event.
Just take the event this week as a lesson.
Showtime, we got:
Movie Store
Update ipods
ITV.
All related to Itunes and audio video experience. That's why was called "Showtime"
Now we have a new event coming up at a Photokina, photographers event.
What should we expect?
Aperture update and maybe something else relate to Photographers needs.
That's all folks!
Stop dreaming about Iphone, Mac Book Pro etc. it won't happen.
MPB's will be update on a Tuesday just like the Imac was couple weeks back. No special event for that.
Iphone if happens will be either have their own event or at MWSF.
Then later people get upset with Apple and don't understand why. Reality check guys.
bloodycape
Aug 23, 10:29 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System. I'm still angry that this patent was even granted in the first place.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
Many people are speculating they go after ms they have/will to go after Archos, Cowon, iRiver, Samsung, Sandisk and Toshiba.
Maybe creative maybe nice enough to give ipod some their X-Fi technology? This could be a good thing on both sides.
Creative was doing bad for the most part however Q1 and Q2 of this year they actually saw some profits. So things were changing for them. Just go to their site they have it all listed there.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
Many people are speculating they go after ms they have/will to go after Archos, Cowon, iRiver, Samsung, Sandisk and Toshiba.
Maybe creative maybe nice enough to give ipod some their X-Fi technology? This could be a good thing on both sides.
Creative was doing bad for the most part however Q1 and Q2 of this year they actually saw some profits. So things were changing for them. Just go to their site they have it all listed there.
DrFrankTM
Sep 12, 05:02 AM
Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
hayesk
May 3, 06:58 PM
My iMacs have 2 Firewire ports (a 27" and a 24") which I use for TM and a SD clone external. The new iMacs only have one FW port - with 4 USB connections. Seems like a slower way to have to back up, and I see no externals out there that run Thunderbolt.
Am I missing something? :confused:
I'm missing why you would waste money on FW or TB for backups. Why do you need top performance for simply backups. Save yourself some money and get a cheap USB drive for backups. I just bought a 3TB USB driver at Best Buy for $170 CDN - it's just as safe as a firewire drive, and I don't need the speed - it's not like I'm capturing video or running software off of it.
Am I missing something? :confused:
I'm missing why you would waste money on FW or TB for backups. Why do you need top performance for simply backups. Save yourself some money and get a cheap USB drive for backups. I just bought a 3TB USB driver at Best Buy for $170 CDN - it's just as safe as a firewire drive, and I don't need the speed - it's not like I'm capturing video or running software off of it.
blizaine
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
I heard the mall cop got the head-shot while moving at full speed on a Segway. Simply amazing.
Yankee617
Apr 20, 12:28 PM
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
i'm not on facebook.
i'm not on facebook.
gugy
Aug 31, 12:55 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
cere
Apr 14, 01:24 PM
Guys, should I buy now or wa......
A Mac? Why not?
A Mac? Why not?
technima
Apr 22, 01:59 AM
This would be awesome! LaLa reborn!
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 26, 09:47 AM
All I can say is whoever is the provider in Europe, Apple better hurry the hell up and release the damn thing!! :mad:
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 8, 08:25 AM
I'm calling it now. Apple's new "media center" device will be the iPod itself. I'm thinking that Apple will release a dock well suited for high definition video output to an HD tv.
People will purchase movies on iTunes, their movies will be transfered to their iPod upon updating and then, they can take their iPod to their TV (or anybody elses) for viewing movies on the large screen.
Remember.. I called it ;)
I was just thinking something along those lines. You sit at the couch, iPod in hand. Use it as a super remote control, cycling through movies, iMovie, iTunes, quicktime content etc. With or without the TV on. iPod screen shows same thing as the tv display (control-wise). content is streamed from the media center which is nothing more than a wireless transfer device from your computer, or maybe it is all self contained content, or both. Hmmmmm.:rolleyes:
People will purchase movies on iTunes, their movies will be transfered to their iPod upon updating and then, they can take their iPod to their TV (or anybody elses) for viewing movies on the large screen.
Remember.. I called it ;)
I was just thinking something along those lines. You sit at the couch, iPod in hand. Use it as a super remote control, cycling through movies, iMovie, iTunes, quicktime content etc. With or without the TV on. iPod screen shows same thing as the tv display (control-wise). content is streamed from the media center which is nothing more than a wireless transfer device from your computer, or maybe it is all self contained content, or both. Hmmmmm.:rolleyes:
MacMan86
Apr 12, 04:30 PM
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express...
You're quite wrong there. AirPlay IS AirTunes. It's AirTunes + video equivalent of AirTunes. An Airport Express is now an 'AirPlay device'. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express...
You're quite wrong there. AirPlay IS AirTunes. It's AirTunes + video equivalent of AirTunes. An Airport Express is now an 'AirPlay device'. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay
DTphonehome
Aug 23, 05:51 PM
Another spin on all of this is the fact they just get 100 million from apple and now they decided to spend mega bucks on it over here in the uk up untill reacently we hardly sore a advert for ipods or apple computers saw a lot of adds for creative zen but bugger all for ipods which is better i wonder ie market leader who dosnt push the advertising or the people who advertise a lot and still dont have a large market share ....
To put it politely theres to many fingers in this pie and end of the day i know which system i prefer i aint saying its apple and its ipod either :D
Putting 4 periods after a paragraph doesn't make up for no periods in the paragraph itself.
To put it politely theres to many fingers in this pie and end of the day i know which system i prefer i aint saying its apple and its ipod either :D
Putting 4 periods after a paragraph doesn't make up for no periods in the paragraph itself.
andiwm2003
Sep 9, 08:31 AM
Yes of course it can, you obviously don't understand what x86_64 is.
Manic Mouse obviously understands what 64 bit means. that is obvious if one is able to read the post.;)
i also wonder if the new systems are really future proof or if hybrid systems like this will in a few years be not compatible. also how will windows run on a system like this? what about games that usually expect a certain hardware setup?
Manic Mouse obviously understands what 64 bit means. that is obvious if one is able to read the post.;)
i also wonder if the new systems are really future proof or if hybrid systems like this will in a few years be not compatible. also how will windows run on a system like this? what about games that usually expect a certain hardware setup?
aohus
Apr 20, 12:23 PM
android enthusiast here.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment