williwilli
Aug 7, 02:49 AM
here's my assesment of the situation; a complete and reasonable roundup of what to expect at the show
http://www.sejus.com/earth2willi/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1184
http://www.sejus.com/earth2willi/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1184
SciFrog
Feb 8, 04:45 PM
On a side note, I have reached #977 overall with 6.4 mio units! I didn't think it was possible before the bigadv units...
kadajawi
Sep 7, 04:31 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
twoodcc
Nov 9, 04:03 AM
Well it is not supported, same as running GPU on Linux... Only difference is that they are so many doing so that they figured it out...
it's not supported?
it's not supported?
BabyFaceMagee
Jan 11, 11:30 PM
There are several companies that have been working on various ways to provide power without cords "the holy grail" being the eventual elimination of power cords for all sorts of computers, applicances etc.
My guess is that they will have a 'basic' version of this workable for a low power mac laptop that can be powered in a room with a wireless power transmitter doing away with the need for a power cord. As long as you are within range, similar to a wireless signal, the mac air will be able to charge and receive power wirelessly.
You heard it hear first.
BFM
My guess is that they will have a 'basic' version of this workable for a low power mac laptop that can be powered in a room with a wireless power transmitter doing away with the need for a power cord. As long as you are within range, similar to a wireless signal, the mac air will be able to charge and receive power wirelessly.
You heard it hear first.
BFM
RaceTripper
Jan 22, 09:17 PM
They make racing and sport seats
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
WildGuess
Apr 2, 09:16 PM
This edition will be forever known as the light bleed model. Mine has it, only slightly annoying. But it certainly knocks down the resale value, almost forcing me to consider exchanging it. Also slightly annoying.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 16, 07:52 AM
Digitimes... Page 1... What has happened to the world! :p
cbnsoul
Apr 19, 11:40 AM
What are these "Macs" you speak of?
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
The.316
Nov 27, 08:41 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 22, 12:49 PM
No, no one is forced to do anything. Apple is more extreme with what they will and will not allow. Others follow suit b/c they know Apple changes the world. Android market allows practically everything.
So Apple should have the choice what they allow and don't allow?
So Apple should have the choice what they allow and don't allow?
milo
Nov 16, 10:45 AM
31% is a little disappointing for 2x the number of cores.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
twoodcc
Mar 25, 12:12 PM
congrats to 4JNA for 6 million points!
SLCentral
Aug 16, 12:02 PM
So I take it that it would be really stupid for me to buy a 5G 30GB iPod today, since I've been using a Mini since they were released?
Counter
Nov 18, 09:29 AM
iTunes saw much less improvements?
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
triceretops
Apr 12, 10:18 PM
Is there anybody actually filming this? From what the tweets are describing, the audience are loving it, i'd like to see this keynote.
Everybody there is an editor. They don't know how to use a camera.:p
Everybody there is an editor. They don't know how to use a camera.:p
flyfish29
Mar 26, 04:13 PM
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
Yes, Apple made this browser before M$ IE was pulled, but it was obvious that M$ would be pulling it long before they announced it. With the integratioin of IE into windows it was only a matter of time and if Apple had waited until the announcement they would have been so far behind that the mainstream would have suffered. Safari is just now getting up to speed on its accessability to most web pages- and I even still have major accessability problems with some financial pages and registering at some other types of pages. Most people don't know about the alternative browsers out there such as Mozilla, etc. so it would have proved devestating to Apple had they not been on the ball with Safari. They just know netscape, IE and now safari. I think iMac-Japan's comment on this particular issue is partly true as is your Calebj14.
Yes, Apple made this browser before M$ IE was pulled, but it was obvious that M$ would be pulling it long before they announced it. With the integratioin of IE into windows it was only a matter of time and if Apple had waited until the announcement they would have been so far behind that the mainstream would have suffered. Safari is just now getting up to speed on its accessability to most web pages- and I even still have major accessability problems with some financial pages and registering at some other types of pages. Most people don't know about the alternative browsers out there such as Mozilla, etc. so it would have proved devestating to Apple had they not been on the ball with Safari. They just know netscape, IE and now safari. I think iMac-Japan's comment on this particular issue is partly true as is your Calebj14.
ingenious
Apr 8, 10:47 AM
And there I thought that Microshaft stopped development of Internet Exploder for the Mac because Apple released Safari. Which happened first?
read above- apple released safari first (altho imac_japan will deny that. he denies anything anyone writes except himself). M$ thot that safari was too good for them to be able to compete, so they withdrew. this was plan that was already in motion to remove all stand alone versions of IE (win/mac).
Well....then Is this the Mac-files ?
Is there a conspiracy ???
no, but its true! ask most ppl here and they will tell you that. these were also both UK sites, and ive found that (no offense) UK sites dont usually provide an unbiased opinion about apple. IMHO, i think its cuz they're upset that the iPod mini and iTMS haven't been released there yet. :D
read above- apple released safari first (altho imac_japan will deny that. he denies anything anyone writes except himself). M$ thot that safari was too good for them to be able to compete, so they withdrew. this was plan that was already in motion to remove all stand alone versions of IE (win/mac).
Well....then Is this the Mac-files ?
Is there a conspiracy ???
no, but its true! ask most ppl here and they will tell you that. these were also both UK sites, and ive found that (no offense) UK sites dont usually provide an unbiased opinion about apple. IMHO, i think its cuz they're upset that the iPod mini and iTMS haven't been released there yet. :D
senseless
Apr 9, 04:35 PM
Manual (stick) shift cars are rare today and I'm wondering how many people still know how to drive them. How did you learn and do you have a desire to own one?
stevehp
Oct 23, 08:23 AM
please let this be true. I've had enough of waiting and these posts are too much to handle every week!
Sport73
Sep 6, 06:36 PM
The most important insight from all of these 'rumors' is that Apple MUST have something more to discuss on Tuesday than simply the release of the Movie Store. With Amazon trumping Apple on content and major questions outstanding about quality and DRM, it would be a big mistake to hold a major press event just for that.
Clearly, the new iPod AND a media streaming/center device is on tap, otherwise this event will go on record as the biggest flop in Apple SE history.
Clearly, the new iPod AND a media streaming/center device is on tap, otherwise this event will go on record as the biggest flop in Apple SE history.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
KingYaba
Jul 18, 01:53 PM
This rental thing sounds stupid. Secondly, whats to stop some of us from figureing away out to kill the timed life of hte movie files so we can keep it forever. (seeing if we are downloading them)
There will be more pirates than ever if apple does movies. I can think of so many ways.
Even if they are streamed, I know ways to keep the movie.
There will be more pirates than ever if apple does movies. I can think of so many ways.
Even if they are streamed, I know ways to keep the movie.
ro2nie
Jul 18, 10:55 AM
Apple don't want to be left out of this online movie thing. They tried to convince the studios, but they couldnt, so I think they have no choice but to make it a rental service before it's too late
No comments:
Post a Comment