mrsir2009
Apr 25, 03:01 PM
I wonder if they'll go SSD and maintain the price-point by saying bye-bye to the superdrive? I hope so, i'd prefer SSD speed over a disc drive which i hardly use anymore.
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Sorry, but the cost of an 80GB SSD is about $500 NZD, while an optical drive costs $30 NZD. Don't think it'll quite cover the cost ;) Oh, and if you want something like a 500GB+ SSD your looking at $1000+
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Sorry, but the cost of an 80GB SSD is about $500 NZD, while an optical drive costs $30 NZD. Don't think it'll quite cover the cost ;) Oh, and if you want something like a 500GB+ SSD your looking at $1000+
entropi
Apr 25, 02:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
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!
"Shure" Great company aren't they? Had the 535s for a while and loved them. (I'm assuming you know about high end audio? Lol)
meh. "sure" ok? :-) (I know all about high end audio, but I'm more of a apogee & genelec-fan...)
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!
"Shure" Great company aren't they? Had the 535s for a while and loved them. (I'm assuming you know about high end audio? Lol)
meh. "sure" ok? :-) (I know all about high end audio, but I'm more of a apogee & genelec-fan...)
blybug
Sep 5, 10:00 AM
Anyone else notice that Elgato have now pulled their Eyehome media streaming device without a replacement? Anything to do with rumors of a rival device from Apple?
I'd be overjoyed if Apple has "bought out" the EyeHome from Elgato and gives it the polish and compatibility only Apple could do. I've used EyeHome for over 2 years and it's at best "OK" as a media hub. The box itself is tacky (make it look like the mini or a stereo component...and give it an optical drive), the on-screen interface is pretty kludgy (replace it with Front Row), protected media cannot play (of course Apple can fix that), MP4 support/quality is inconsistent and H.264 support completely absent (again Apple can fix that).
I've always seen EyeHome as a good try by a 3rd party, but really needing some spit and shine that only Apple could provide. I bet the quiet disappearance of this product from Elgato will indeed prove itself to be the hardware analogy to SoundJam-->iTunes. The new Apple "EyeHome" (iHome??? hmmm...already taken...iPod Home?? Front Row Media Center??) should be a very stripped-down mac mini that boots up to Front Row with the addition of a "Settings" menu, and access to purchasing music and/or movies which end up in the iTunes library of a connected computer.
I was planning to buy a mini to replace my EyeHome as soon as it had Front Row available, but then the price went up by $100...simply not worth buying a whole computer for this use. Sell a device like this for $200 and you've got me!:D
I'd be overjoyed if Apple has "bought out" the EyeHome from Elgato and gives it the polish and compatibility only Apple could do. I've used EyeHome for over 2 years and it's at best "OK" as a media hub. The box itself is tacky (make it look like the mini or a stereo component...and give it an optical drive), the on-screen interface is pretty kludgy (replace it with Front Row), protected media cannot play (of course Apple can fix that), MP4 support/quality is inconsistent and H.264 support completely absent (again Apple can fix that).
I've always seen EyeHome as a good try by a 3rd party, but really needing some spit and shine that only Apple could provide. I bet the quiet disappearance of this product from Elgato will indeed prove itself to be the hardware analogy to SoundJam-->iTunes. The new Apple "EyeHome" (iHome??? hmmm...already taken...iPod Home?? Front Row Media Center??) should be a very stripped-down mac mini that boots up to Front Row with the addition of a "Settings" menu, and access to purchasing music and/or movies which end up in the iTunes library of a connected computer.
I was planning to buy a mini to replace my EyeHome as soon as it had Front Row available, but then the price went up by $100...simply not worth buying a whole computer for this use. Sell a device like this for $200 and you've got me!:D
ripfrankwhite
Sep 5, 01:00 PM
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
LaMerVipere
Sep 5, 02:45 PM
iTunes Movie Store http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/5757/animbouncefg0.gif
guet
Nov 14, 01:53 AM
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
roland.g
Mar 22, 03:09 PM
I am going to be in the market to replace my 24" 2.8 rev. A aluminum iMac (Aug 2007) when these come out with a new 27". I will be consolidating to an iMac and iPad 2 since I no longer feel the need for a 13" MacBook Pro as well.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
GFLPraxis
Mar 23, 04:57 PM
I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
Agreed. But Trapster is primarily for speed traps, DUI traps is just a secondary function.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
Agreed. But Trapster is primarily for speed traps, DUI traps is just a secondary function.
mac.rumors
Apr 30, 10:51 PM
Call me clumsy or whatever, but I hate the 'corners': I accidentally trigger them all the time on a frien's machine. Mostly because I use the Apple menu a lot. I DO miss the old mouse's side buttons/center button!
Isn't this and your quoted post by JMP the same - MacOS X related troll in an iMac update thread?
Isn't this and your quoted post by JMP the same - MacOS X related troll in an iMac update thread?
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 09:56 AM
If Apple DOES introduce C2D MacBook Pros at this, it will have to totally redesign the case to make it "invite event" worthy.
If all that's being changed is the processor, or minor cae changes (like the addition of FW800 across the line), it will simply be done in silent, overnight fashion as was the case with the iMac update.
That being said, I don't see such a radical case design this soon. That seems more like something where they'd like to focus on the computer itself, which wouldn't happen as part of a photo show.
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Also, there's always a chance that in addition to an Aperture update, we'll get TOTALLY NEW photo software; remember what happened with Final Cut Pro - first came it and then came a slew of other video products from Apple.
If all that's being changed is the processor, or minor cae changes (like the addition of FW800 across the line), it will simply be done in silent, overnight fashion as was the case with the iMac update.
That being said, I don't see such a radical case design this soon. That seems more like something where they'd like to focus on the computer itself, which wouldn't happen as part of a photo show.
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Also, there's always a chance that in addition to an Aperture update, we'll get TOTALLY NEW photo software; remember what happened with Final Cut Pro - first came it and then came a slew of other video products from Apple.
Lynxpoint
Sep 14, 02:54 PM
aperture update aside, what do the "pro photographers" on here see as something missing in their workflow or that could critically change their workflow?
I like the sound of a monitor that self colour corrects, for example.
I like the sound of a monitor that self colour corrects, for example.
prady16
Sep 26, 08:05 AM
Any idea what kind of "top-secret" features Leopard could support for iPhone?
Let your imaginiations run wild!
Let your imaginiations run wild!
IntelliUser
Jan 15, 05:33 PM
Do you run itunes or quicktime? Or possibly a web browser?
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
cmaier
Nov 17, 04:46 PM
I had an app rejected because the icon was a cartoon of the presidential seal where the eagle, in one claw, was holding an iphone-looking phone, which I drew myself, and which was probably 12 pixels x 6 pixels or so in size (in an overall icon that was 57px x 57px.)
But apparently including a 3/4 scale photo of an iphone is fine.
Whatever.
But apparently including a 3/4 scale photo of an iphone is fine.
Whatever.
7on
Sep 13, 08:24 AM
This is the first time I've thought about getting an iPod since the 4G.
First time I've thought about getting an iPod since the 2G
First time I've thought about getting an iPod since the 2G
milo
Mar 30, 12:15 PM
While my gut wants to side with MS on this one, there's a simple test of whether App Store is generic or not.
Before apple created the App Store within iTunes, was the term in use (and specifically "app store", not just "app")? Possibly more importantly, before they applied for the trademark was any company selling apps and calling it by that term?
It probably comes down to prior art - if it truly is a generic term, then someone should be able to provide the example of X used the term in 19XX, before the trademark was filed. Anyone here able to provide an example of the term being used before Apple filed for it?
Before apple created the App Store within iTunes, was the term in use (and specifically "app store", not just "app")? Possibly more importantly, before they applied for the trademark was any company selling apps and calling it by that term?
It probably comes down to prior art - if it truly is a generic term, then someone should be able to provide the example of X used the term in 19XX, before the trademark was filed. Anyone here able to provide an example of the term being used before Apple filed for it?
jessica.
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Funny how people are waffle so easily when it comes to censorship.
CalfCanuck
Sep 14, 07:16 PM
That'd be very nice, but I think that's too niche for Apple to get into. Although Apple does take its photography seriously, it only really produces hardware that is versatile and can be used for many different tasks - i.e. although the Mac Pro is serious photograhpy equipment, it can also be serious movie editing or CAD equipment. Infact, I can't think of any hardware made by Apple that is specifically photography directed.
Then again, there's nothing to say they won't break the habit of a lifetime.
While I have nothing to back up this idea beyond wild speculation, it makes sense if you think about it for a while.
I used the name "Aperture.iPod" just for this thread. I think the APerture features would be targeted to special audience, but even the Photo uploading features (plus integration into iPhoto) would give it the broader appeal you correctly discuss.
Several reason why this might happen:
1. Apple has had a product called the Photo iPod since October 2004. The fact that few of it's users probably use it for Photos merely points out that it failed in it's targeted market for a number of reasons (probably lack of easy uploading from cameras when not at a computer, small screen, and lack of support for RAW).
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
So why will Apple start selling a video size that isn't designed for the current iPod? While it could be for the "iTV" device, I'd image that is a bit too small a resolution to get people excited about. And even if it is, why start selling it 6 months before the device ships?
3. If Apple was to introduce a new Video iPod with a larger screen, this new larger box would allow a number of things that can''t fit on a small iPod and are perfect for both video AND photography - a large 640 x 480 screen, FW or USB2 connections, and potentially CF/SD card slots (or at least an IO for a fast adapter via the USB2 connection.)
Hence my conclusion (based on pure speculation) - all these things point to a dual use device. Handheld, but larger than normal iPods, and suitable for both consumer video playback AND photography.
What better place to introduce this than the biggest consumer photo show in the world?
Then again, there's nothing to say they won't break the habit of a lifetime.
While I have nothing to back up this idea beyond wild speculation, it makes sense if you think about it for a while.
I used the name "Aperture.iPod" just for this thread. I think the APerture features would be targeted to special audience, but even the Photo uploading features (plus integration into iPhoto) would give it the broader appeal you correctly discuss.
Several reason why this might happen:
1. Apple has had a product called the Photo iPod since October 2004. The fact that few of it's users probably use it for Photos merely points out that it failed in it's targeted market for a number of reasons (probably lack of easy uploading from cameras when not at a computer, small screen, and lack of support for RAW).
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
So why will Apple start selling a video size that isn't designed for the current iPod? While it could be for the "iTV" device, I'd image that is a bit too small a resolution to get people excited about. And even if it is, why start selling it 6 months before the device ships?
3. If Apple was to introduce a new Video iPod with a larger screen, this new larger box would allow a number of things that can''t fit on a small iPod and are perfect for both video AND photography - a large 640 x 480 screen, FW or USB2 connections, and potentially CF/SD card slots (or at least an IO for a fast adapter via the USB2 connection.)
Hence my conclusion (based on pure speculation) - all these things point to a dual use device. Handheld, but larger than normal iPods, and suitable for both consumer video playback AND photography.
What better place to introduce this than the biggest consumer photo show in the world?
supermacdesign
Sep 19, 01:35 PM
Studios are scrambling and re-evaluating there offers right now to get on board.
apnewb
Mar 23, 09:26 AM
A 24" TOUCH SCREEN would be a great addition???
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 17, 06:36 PM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
bloodycape
Jul 14, 03:49 PM
Cnet net already has a 2 reviews and a one video for this chip on two different pcs. One is Dell the other is Falcon Northwest.
The dell review and video here.
The dell review and video here.
jellomizer
Sep 14, 04:58 PM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
I Hope so. I wanna a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro!
I Hope so. I wanna a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro!
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:33 PM
You are wrong. CDMA is also in SK and Japan. Most 3G users in Japan are on CDMA2000 a varient of CDMA that is used in the U.S.
I meant on a 2G level; I wanted to make things simple so that he/she could understand. And don't forget about the popular W-CDMA technologies, such as UMTS/HSPDA which is used by Cingular and soon T-Mobile in the US.
And Japan's 2G PDC technology is by the way TDMA based and not CDMA! Although their 3G technologies I believe are CDMA based.
I meant on a 2G level; I wanted to make things simple so that he/she could understand. And don't forget about the popular W-CDMA technologies, such as UMTS/HSPDA which is used by Cingular and soon T-Mobile in the US.
And Japan's 2G PDC technology is by the way TDMA based and not CDMA! Although their 3G technologies I believe are CDMA based.