Trench
Aug 23, 06:24 PM
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
liketom
Aug 31, 02:18 PM
Story updated.
It appears there will be an event on Sept 12th in San Francisco which will be broadcast to London.
arn
looks like us brits are getting something then :D
It appears there will be an event on Sept 12th in San Francisco which will be broadcast to London.
arn
looks like us brits are getting something then :D
Lesser Evets
Apr 22, 05:07 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
This is one of the many scenarios that make me wonder why "cloud based" services are so pursued. Lack of signal, in any way, means your device is useless.
Coupled with the probability that within a decade there will be cheap memory to hold everything the vast majority of users wants/possesses, this cloud-based stuff seems more like a control issue than a service provided.
This is one of the many scenarios that make me wonder why "cloud based" services are so pursued. Lack of signal, in any way, means your device is useless.
Coupled with the probability that within a decade there will be cheap memory to hold everything the vast majority of users wants/possesses, this cloud-based stuff seems more like a control issue than a service provided.
gloss
Sep 26, 08:59 AM
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah, the termination fee is harsh, but I'm honestly not sure I could last another year and a half without throwing my Razr into a trash compactor. I like the phone, but the god-awful interface that Verizon loads onto it is another story.
A cell phone should NOT require hard reboots.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah, the termination fee is harsh, but I'm honestly not sure I could last another year and a half without throwing my Razr into a trash compactor. I like the phone, but the god-awful interface that Verizon loads onto it is another story.
A cell phone should NOT require hard reboots.
ChazUK
Apr 19, 11:36 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
kdarling
Apr 19, 06:47 AM
The phone's look is indeed very similar.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Fireburst
Oct 27, 12:28 PM
It was witnessed by a PCW reporter
http://labs.pcw.co.uk/2006/10/apples_got_some.html
http://labs.pcw.co.uk/2006/10/apples_got_some.html
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 03:03 PM
I'm pretty sure there will countless companies willing to take on Apple as a new customer.
just because countless are willing does not mean they have the ablity to produce the output demands at the quality Apple wants.
Also when a company gets the reputations of distrust with its partners prices are generally raised and they are less willing to work with them. It is a bad idea to chew up and spit out companies. Remember everyone talks. I have seen enough of the deals that go on that one one really knows about.
just because countless are willing does not mean they have the ablity to produce the output demands at the quality Apple wants.
Also when a company gets the reputations of distrust with its partners prices are generally raised and they are less willing to work with them. It is a bad idea to chew up and spit out companies. Remember everyone talks. I have seen enough of the deals that go on that one one really knows about.
zombierunner
Mar 23, 03:05 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
What so you guys think about having the new iMacs in an all black colour option ... Kinda sexy if you ask me .. Matte black ofcourse!
What so you guys think about having the new iMacs in an all black colour option ... Kinda sexy if you ask me .. Matte black ofcourse!
iLunar
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
Why do they always use the smaller sized iPods for the special editions?
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:26 PM
...which is still a bottleneck.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
:confused::confused::confused:
Have some new tech that you'd like to share with us?
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
:confused::confused::confused:
Have some new tech that you'd like to share with us?
LagunaSol
Apr 4, 12:47 PM
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd.
It's only fantasy because not enough law-abiding civilians are toting guns.
Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Columbine, Ft. Hood, the list goes on and on - someone trained, armed, and on location in any of those tragedies could have been a godsend.
The fact an off-duty policeman was onsite at Trolley Square certainly saved many lives, but an armed, trained civilian could have done the same.
It's only fantasy because not enough law-abiding civilians are toting guns.
Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Columbine, Ft. Hood, the list goes on and on - someone trained, armed, and on location in any of those tragedies could have been a godsend.
The fact an off-duty policeman was onsite at Trolley Square certainly saved many lives, but an armed, trained civilian could have done the same.
ksz
Jul 14, 09:16 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.
thworple
Oct 27, 10:30 AM
MacWorld Quote:
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child�s pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Ok, this I honestly didn't see, and if true, then warrants a serious reprimand of any organisation at Mac Expo!! I hope that the reason they were ejected was something like this, and not just handing out leaflets in the wrong area, like I was led to believe from the thread so far!
I wouldn't like anyone taking photos of my child without permission, and if true then Greenpeace have behaved irresponsibly!
doodosh
Sep 12, 07:39 PM
I was really curious if the 5.5 G iPod has the same back finish as the U2 special edition. That would make things a lot better imo
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:48 AM
I understand the concept of all this, but what if you're in a place with bad reception (or no WiFi for users without an iPhone)? I don't think that I'll be switching to an all-cloud storage service any time soon.
I do not think that is the plan. I believe the service will allow you to download your songs as well. It just gives you the option to go to the cloud if / when needed.
I do not think that is the plan. I believe the service will allow you to download your songs as well. It just gives you the option to go to the cloud if / when needed.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 10, 08:41 PM
Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)
Eidorian
Jul 17, 10:55 AM
Merom to launch July 23rd according to the latest Intel roadmap from this site :
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=631837I sure hope it's July 23rd.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=631837I sure hope it's July 23rd.
w00master
Nov 13, 01:52 PM
Jeff LaMarche's (co-author of "Beginning iPhone Development") take on this situation:
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
And Gruber's response to this response:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
Sorry, but imho there is absolutely *no* reason to defend Apple here.
w00master
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
And Gruber's response to this response:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation
Sorry, but imho there is absolutely *no* reason to defend Apple here.
w00master
Teddy's
Aug 28, 12:07 PM
Great, just after the "back to school" shopping spree. Well, there will be better performance increases in 2007. I hope.
Zwhaler
Aug 23, 08:47 PM
Creative's stock up 30% in after-hours trading. The $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but it will certainly help Creative...
Yeah, but at least Apple doesn't have to worry about any more lawsuits
Yeah, but at least Apple doesn't have to worry about any more lawsuits
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
gloss
Sep 26, 09:02 AM
I wonder when exactly this Vista phone will come out.
Snicker.
Snicker.
Erwin-Br
Apr 28, 03:35 PM
So, are we supposed to be proud about this? And if so, why has the same 'accomplishment' earned Microsoft the 'M$' reputation? Double morals?
