jacollins
Apr 20, 11:17 AM
Unless I'm missing it in the thread, I didn't see anything on this particular question. Does anyone know if this database on the iPhone is accessible by apps? ie. can you download some app that then scans the database and uploads your information elsewhere behind the scenes?
cubbie5150
Feb 11, 11:47 AM
It IS a nice gesture... I had to uninstall it as it doesn't seem to play nice w/ Cyber Duck (app simply won't open w/ Sophos installed)....haven't run into chatter about that issue, so maybe something unique to me [shrug]
mlrproducts
Sep 13, 11:41 PM
I hope the iPhone can be use iChat and we can video chat with and Mac at any time.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
toddybody
Mar 23, 04:25 PM
Oh god no I hope apple doesn't cave to this kind of Orwellian garbage. I feel for all of the victims of DUIs and know that I have personally called the police on a car that was very obviously had an impaired person behind the wheel but as a non drunk driver if I want to avoid being hassled I should be able to.
First of all, DUI checkpoints aren't so frequent that they provide every day hassle to drivers...secondly, they take a very short amount of time to go through (if you havnt been drinking, Cops know). Besides, how is this Orwellian at all? Apple isn't being asked to report users of the application or anything. Sorry man, but if it saves 1 life from drunk driving...it's the right thing to do.
First of all, DUI checkpoints aren't so frequent that they provide every day hassle to drivers...secondly, they take a very short amount of time to go through (if you havnt been drinking, Cops know). Besides, how is this Orwellian at all? Apple isn't being asked to report users of the application or anything. Sorry man, but if it saves 1 life from drunk driving...it's the right thing to do.
Vercingetorix
May 3, 04:38 PM
I use my 2010 27" iMac as a monitor for a PC gaming rig that utilizes the mini-display port and I must say that this will be the last iMac I own until they change this. This was one of main selling points for me since I could still use a pc and not have to suffer with the iMac's poor gaming performance.
No matter how you slice it, the integrated video card with the current iMacs CANNOT drive the resolution these displays use.
The only option is build a high end PC that can push that kinda resolution at decent framerates.
The video cards in these machines will be perfectly adequate for 95 percent of what 95 percent of their potential customers need, and that's what Apple cares about. Why eat into profit margins and complicate the product line when such a tiny segment of the market cares about something?
Now that they have removed the option and restricted it to TB only display ports, we are now forced to "upgrade" to a new mac tho it still cant hold a candle to whats available to system builders today.
I made the switch to Mac years and years ago but I think it's finally run it's course. When this thing takes a **** and they offer me a new one through my Apple Care, I'll sell it and buy a real display an perhaps mac mini.
Apple has fallen so far behind the desktop computing business and its clear they want to funnel their remaining customers through this purchase path.
They haven't fallen behind; they're just not interested in serving the market you're part of. Apple are interested in selling elegant, integrated, simple computers to ordinary people, and ordinary people play games on consoles. The universe of potential customers who care about high-end gaming on personal computers is relatively tiny, so Apple always have and always will ignore it. I'm an occasional gamer myself, so I know it's frustrating, but the simple fact is that if you use a Mac to do most of your day-to-day computer stuff, you're going to have to have a Plan B to do any high-end gaming. The market isn't big enough to make Apple care otherwise.
No matter how you slice it, the integrated video card with the current iMacs CANNOT drive the resolution these displays use.
The only option is build a high end PC that can push that kinda resolution at decent framerates.
The video cards in these machines will be perfectly adequate for 95 percent of what 95 percent of their potential customers need, and that's what Apple cares about. Why eat into profit margins and complicate the product line when such a tiny segment of the market cares about something?
Now that they have removed the option and restricted it to TB only display ports, we are now forced to "upgrade" to a new mac tho it still cant hold a candle to whats available to system builders today.
I made the switch to Mac years and years ago but I think it's finally run it's course. When this thing takes a **** and they offer me a new one through my Apple Care, I'll sell it and buy a real display an perhaps mac mini.
Apple has fallen so far behind the desktop computing business and its clear they want to funnel their remaining customers through this purchase path.
They haven't fallen behind; they're just not interested in serving the market you're part of. Apple are interested in selling elegant, integrated, simple computers to ordinary people, and ordinary people play games on consoles. The universe of potential customers who care about high-end gaming on personal computers is relatively tiny, so Apple always have and always will ignore it. I'm an occasional gamer myself, so I know it's frustrating, but the simple fact is that if you use a Mac to do most of your day-to-day computer stuff, you're going to have to have a Plan B to do any high-end gaming. The market isn't big enough to make Apple care otherwise.
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:24 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Adidas Addict
Apr 22, 12:28 PM
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
Specs? I have no idea, but from using both I can tell you that when it comes to viewing angles, colours, brightness, blacks and whites that the 13" MBP is superior in every way. (And I supposedly had the better part number for the screen in the MBA)
Specs? I have no idea, but from using both I can tell you that when it comes to viewing angles, colours, brightness, blacks and whites that the 13" MBP is superior in every way. (And I supposedly had the better part number for the screen in the MBA)
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
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.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
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.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 04:35 PM
Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.
Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...
Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...
jettredmont
Sep 5, 03:20 PM
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
This is a situation dying for a solution. Oh, yeah, there already is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
This is a situation dying for a solution. Oh, yeah, there already is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
blueflame
Sep 13, 08:58 PM
Hmm... Does this really count as front page news? :confused:
Not to say it isn't cool, but we're still talking about an artist rendition based on a reliable source... Not the iPhone "revealed".
Just my 2 pennies. ;)
When i just went to MR, and this popped up, I almost had a heart attack. wallet ready before the story eved loaded. I was quite dissapointed. i am waiting for this SO much. this is the one device i would bu at the drop of a hat
andreas
Not to say it isn't cool, but we're still talking about an artist rendition based on a reliable source... Not the iPhone "revealed".
Just my 2 pennies. ;)
When i just went to MR, and this popped up, I almost had a heart attack. wallet ready before the story eved loaded. I was quite dissapointed. i am waiting for this SO much. this is the one device i would bu at the drop of a hat
andreas
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:23 PM
Meh I want the black nano to match my macbook, not a red one. :\
firsttube
Sep 13, 10:03 PM
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement™" itself and not the codename
Yeah, I think they want people to download content starting today knowing that they'll be able to watch it on their nice big flat screen tv in the living room soon.
Steve jobs said "nice big flat screen tv" a lot during the itv intro, didn't he?
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement™" itself and not the codename
Yeah, I think they want people to download content starting today knowing that they'll be able to watch it on their nice big flat screen tv in the living room soon.
Steve jobs said "nice big flat screen tv" a lot during the itv intro, didn't he?
macintel4me
Sep 4, 07:05 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
vansouza
Sep 12, 02:23 PM
I for one am stoked.. will upgrade my G5 when ever and get the new G5 when I can. Soon.. that iTV bit is too totally cool... want one...
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?
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:39 AM
As to logic-board being 32bits... Uh, no. There might be various reasons why it doesn't support 4GB of RAM, and it isn't due to "bitness" of the logic-board. And pray-tell: what exactly is a "32bit logic-board"?
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
spydr
Sep 21, 09:25 PM
I have an idea:
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.
Aperture
Aug 31, 03:55 PM
Are we going to have live MR Coverage of the event? :)
kdarling
Apr 20, 10:56 AM
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
You're right, they say that the Verizon CDMA phone doesn't keep the log.
Okay, then it's a log of GSM cells that the phone sees and/or connects to.
The question is, where does it get the location data from? Either the phone has a complete cell id database internally, or it's using GPS, or it has to go out on the network and ask Apple's cell id servers for the location.
The researchers claim neither GPS nor network data is being used, so there would have to be an internal database, which I've never heard of. Something is missing.
You're right, they say that the Verizon CDMA phone doesn't keep the log.
Okay, then it's a log of GSM cells that the phone sees and/or connects to.
The question is, where does it get the location data from? Either the phone has a complete cell id database internally, or it's using GPS, or it has to go out on the network and ask Apple's cell id servers for the location.
The researchers claim neither GPS nor network data is being used, so there would have to be an internal database, which I've never heard of. Something is missing.
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.
Qunchuy
Sep 19, 03:45 PM
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics.
I don't understand your point. Why would Wal-mart try to sell you a CD as an impulse buy if they lose money on them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
The iTunes Store is about convenience, which is only slightly removed from impulse. If it takes you less time to click on the "buy" button than it does for you to convince yourself that you really don't need it, it's a sale. :)
I don't understand your point. Why would Wal-mart try to sell you a CD as an impulse buy if they lose money on them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
The iTunes Store is about convenience, which is only slightly removed from impulse. If it takes you less time to click on the "buy" button than it does for you to convince yourself that you really don't need it, it's a sale. :)
alent1234
Mar 29, 11:43 AM
When Windows starts to come close to SL in terms of ease of use and functionality let me know ;)
when closing an application in OS X is as easy as clicking an X in the top right corner let me know
even though iOS is a lot better than android some of the over simplicity is annoying on the iphone
when closing an application in OS X is as easy as clicking an X in the top right corner let me know
even though iOS is a lot better than android some of the over simplicity is annoying on the iphone
boncellis
Aug 31, 06:52 PM
Look forward to an OS update around the corner as well. There were rumblings about 10.4.8 being seeded recently--I think updated machines are likely to correspond with software and OS updates as well.
We'll see soon enough--if there is a "special event" my guess would be that it's for something completely new, not a new processor and certainly not a speed bump.
We'll see soon enough--if there is a "special event" my guess would be that it's for something completely new, not a new processor and certainly not a speed bump.
No comments:
Post a Comment