xterm
Jul 14, 09:21 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
CWallace
Jan 11, 07:43 PM
they also think the macbook's gonna have a super drive standard across the line, so they're obviously not talking about the same thing
Considering how inexpensive DVD burners are now, it probably costs Apple more to stock non-burners (for builds and AppleCare) in addition to burners then just moving purely to burners, so that would support a move to SuperDrives across the board.
Considering how inexpensive DVD burners are now, it probably costs Apple more to stock non-burners (for builds and AppleCare) in addition to burners then just moving purely to burners, so that would support a move to SuperDrives across the board.
richard.mac
Apr 3, 03:19 AM
That's because the 'control' button acts like a four-finger gesture. Same applies to ctrl+left arrow and ctrl+right arrow.
yeah, but for a keyboard ctrl-up to close is how it logically should be.. and i think Apple agreed. the first time i tried it i instinctively pressed ctrl-up again to close.
anyone know if recent files in a closed app's dock menu are new? thats an awesome feature, like Windows 7's jump lists, which i really like.
yeah, but for a keyboard ctrl-up to close is how it logically should be.. and i think Apple agreed. the first time i tried it i instinctively pressed ctrl-up again to close.
anyone know if recent files in a closed app's dock menu are new? thats an awesome feature, like Windows 7's jump lists, which i really like.
iBug2
May 2, 06:03 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
Object-X
Nov 27, 08:26 PM
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:08 AM
A thread on the new mac mini where everybody is bitching about the MacBook and the new iMac G5. :confused: :rolleyes:
As a side note, I think I'll buy a new mini now...
As a side note, I think I'll buy a new mini now...
gnasher729
Jul 18, 03:11 AM
If I'm going to spend all that time downloading a movie, I should at least be able to keep it. Bah.
There is another possibility that wouldn't require any downloads at all. In the UK, many newspapers come with free CDs or DVDs quite often. It would be possible to ship a DVD with the latest movies that way (and you can fit quite a bit of material in H264 format on a double sided DVD), and the rental from iTMS would just unlock the material on the DVD. If you put trailers and promotional material on the DVD in a way that can be accessed directly, this would make many people rent the movies.
And if you want to watch the movie again in a few years, just put in the DVD again and rent it again; no download needed. In the end, even today harddisks are not yet quite big enough that you would want to keep all your rented movies on your harddisk.
There is another possibility that wouldn't require any downloads at all. In the UK, many newspapers come with free CDs or DVDs quite often. It would be possible to ship a DVD with the latest movies that way (and you can fit quite a bit of material in H264 format on a double sided DVD), and the rental from iTMS would just unlock the material on the DVD. If you put trailers and promotional material on the DVD in a way that can be accessed directly, this would make many people rent the movies.
And if you want to watch the movie again in a few years, just put in the DVD again and rent it again; no download needed. In the end, even today harddisks are not yet quite big enough that you would want to keep all your rented movies on your harddisk.
jxyama
Apr 16, 08:22 AM
Very interesting point but I want Apple's share to grow ! The whole point of this thread is to get Apple into every home - right now, its being done by the Ipod but sales can't continue this good forever so they must push the Macintosh into more homes and business.
if you want apple in every home, why don't you buy Macs and give them away? (sarcasm)
the whole point of this thread is NOT to get apple into every home. you started the thread claiming apple is in need of help. apple does not need help, as others have posted many, many times.
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone.
lexus is nice. bmw is nice. are you going to petition that they should offer lower priced version of their cars so everyone could have one? a three story house with huge lawn and furnished basement is nice. are you going to petition morgage companies so that everyone could have a multi-million dollar morgages to get those houses and wreck their business because 99% of them will default?
if you want apple in every home, why don't you buy Macs and give them away? (sarcasm)
the whole point of this thread is NOT to get apple into every home. you started the thread claiming apple is in need of help. apple does not need help, as others have posted many, many times.
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone.
lexus is nice. bmw is nice. are you going to petition that they should offer lower priced version of their cars so everyone could have one? a three story house with huge lawn and furnished basement is nice. are you going to petition morgage companies so that everyone could have a multi-million dollar morgages to get those houses and wreck their business because 99% of them will default?
tjwaido
Apr 27, 12:44 AM
APPle Store - Oh, wait. Apple would probable sue themselves for infringing on Apple Store. Seems to be the trend.
Eraserhead
Mar 19, 05:07 AM
Its always a tough call, if you don't go in you risk something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
lordonuthin
May 3, 12:21 PM
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 12:36 PM
.You think my post is spam? :confused:
well, if you post the same thing in several threads (especially if it's unrelated to the subject of the discussion), then yes, i think it's spam
well, if you post the same thing in several threads (especially if it's unrelated to the subject of the discussion), then yes, i think it's spam
pavelbure
Apr 12, 09:20 PM
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
Ty that's what I thought it was. I know on fce that irritated me.
Ty that's what I thought it was. I know on fce that irritated me.
longsilver
Sep 5, 08:21 AM
Well, the US store is down anyways. UK and Ireland are still up. Anyone checked any others?
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 09:16 AM
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
MM2270
Sep 7, 12:14 PM
I agree with everyone here that if Apple only intros a movie purchase model, it will suck. Most people don't want to own movies. After all, you don't see many music rental services out there in the brick and mortar world, but there are millions of movie rental places. It's a tried and true model that they should emulate to an extent and bring to the online world. Of course, they should innovate on the basic model as Apple is known to do.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 04:56 PM
(Jesus,BBC reporting septics have fired 110 Tomahawks already at $1 million each,Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
Damn those bastards! That batch cost the Americans 35 cents each! (110/308)
Oh well, at least the rich ones can make it up at Ratheon's next dividend payout. :D
Damn those bastards! That batch cost the Americans 35 cents each! (110/308)
Oh well, at least the rich ones can make it up at Ratheon's next dividend payout. :D
BaldiMac
Sep 15, 08:51 AM
As far as the car comparisons go, I actually had an issue that is on point (as opposed to comparing a safety recall to a reception issue.)
I had a 2006 Acura TSX which got poor stereo reception because of an internal antenna. The official response was that it was "working as designed." They offered one year of satellite radio to anyone who complained about it.
Sounds a lot like Apple's response!
I had a 2006 Acura TSX which got poor stereo reception because of an internal antenna. The official response was that it was "working as designed." They offered one year of satellite radio to anyone who complained about it.
Sounds a lot like Apple's response!
MacMan86
Apr 23, 11:44 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
Well that's easy - it seems the purpose of this file is to help you find your location quickly. Without this cache you'd waste bandwidth, time and battery power to look up information that was fixed (cell tower locations). It also means your phone can find your location when you don't have GPS signal, or simply not bother to turn GPS on, which is a win because it consumes so much power. Seems like a pretty compelling use to me. Read this for more info: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
Well that's easy - it seems the purpose of this file is to help you find your location quickly. Without this cache you'd waste bandwidth, time and battery power to look up information that was fixed (cell tower locations). It also means your phone can find your location when you don't have GPS signal, or simply not bother to turn GPS on, which is a win because it consumes so much power. Seems like a pretty compelling use to me. Read this for more info: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
AppleScruff1
Apr 21, 04:21 PM
What about Apple? Why don't they go after them for tracking every little thing you do with their services. If you want to talk about a company that violates & then documents our privacy go after Apple.
Don't be a fool.
But it's ok if Apple does it. What are you thinking? :D
Does anyone else really just not care about this? I could care less. It's not like the info is going to end up in China.
But would you care if it was Microsoft, or Verizon or an Apple competitor? That is the question.
If this were Google or M$ you apologists would be foaming at the mouth. Nice fallacious argument - just because we can be tracked in our cars with traffic cams, or GPS devices, etc, doesn't mean this, or those instances are legal.
This is clearly in violation of EU law, for those of you who are interested:
How true! These same people were hanging Samsung a week or so ago when it was erroneously reported that they installed a key logger on their laptops. It's funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm
We should at least be given the choice to opt-out, and the purposes and disclosure policies should be clearly stated, not buried in a 30-page ToS.
How true! These same people were hanging Samsung a week or so ago when it was erroneously reported that they installed a key logger on their laptops. It's funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
You know you're talking to a fanboy when they dismiss and downplay an issue such as this one.
You should be ashamed. You think because someone makes a shiny phone they can treat you this way?
I wonder how Steve would feel if people could know his location 24/7...
Anything Apple does is ok because they know what is best for us.
Don't be a fool.
But it's ok if Apple does it. What are you thinking? :D
Does anyone else really just not care about this? I could care less. It's not like the info is going to end up in China.
But would you care if it was Microsoft, or Verizon or an Apple competitor? That is the question.
If this were Google or M$ you apologists would be foaming at the mouth. Nice fallacious argument - just because we can be tracked in our cars with traffic cams, or GPS devices, etc, doesn't mean this, or those instances are legal.
This is clearly in violation of EU law, for those of you who are interested:
How true! These same people were hanging Samsung a week or so ago when it was erroneously reported that they installed a key logger on their laptops. It's funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm
We should at least be given the choice to opt-out, and the purposes and disclosure policies should be clearly stated, not buried in a 30-page ToS.
How true! These same people were hanging Samsung a week or so ago when it was erroneously reported that they installed a key logger on their laptops. It's funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
You know you're talking to a fanboy when they dismiss and downplay an issue such as this one.
You should be ashamed. You think because someone makes a shiny phone they can treat you this way?
I wonder how Steve would feel if people could know his location 24/7...
Anything Apple does is ok because they know what is best for us.
playaj82
Aug 16, 09:18 AM
I have no interest in downloading music on the go or waving around my songs wirelessly.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
MacFever
Apr 19, 11:49 AM
Apple will be pushing out Thunderbolt for sure....
I wonder when the cinema displays will get the thunderbolt port for daisychaining ?
Macbook Air with the iMac?
I think Professionals will be waiting to upgrade to hardware unless it thunderbolt ready like the MBP....huge advantage for Pro use with thunderbolt as opposed to current firewire 800.
I wonder when the cinema displays will get the thunderbolt port for daisychaining ?
Macbook Air with the iMac?
I think Professionals will be waiting to upgrade to hardware unless it thunderbolt ready like the MBP....huge advantage for Pro use with thunderbolt as opposed to current firewire 800.
Xero910
Apr 6, 11:24 AM
Hey, that's pretty awesome! I wish that would work with Expos�, for open applications...
Thats exactly what it does do. Swiping up, while hovering over an icon in the dock invokes application spotlight. Works for both running/not running apps. Quite handy. Especially since it works between desktops and even full screen apps.
Thats exactly what it does do. Swiping up, while hovering over an icon in the dock invokes application spotlight. Works for both running/not running apps. Quite handy. Especially since it works between desktops and even full screen apps.
No comments:
Post a Comment