11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
theBB
Mar 31, 07:13 PM
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
aristotle
Apr 6, 04:54 PM
If the sales are so bad why don't they just replace it from the stock they have?
Why put out good money after bad? Shouldn't Motorola be responsible for providing a new demo unit?
If there are no sales then why should the store bother spending their own money on creating a demo unit out of one of the units on sale?
Why put out good money after bad? Shouldn't Motorola be responsible for providing a new demo unit?
If there are no sales then why should the store bother spending their own money on creating a demo unit out of one of the units on sale?
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
takao
Dec 8, 01:22 PM
another great unlockable car: bspec the mazda miata race: Furai (?
) Concept 08
made the japanese only lvl 18 cup not only easy but the most one side race ever
with some tuning 399 kw at a 650 kg which makes it pretty mean
) Concept 08
made the japanese only lvl 18 cup not only easy but the most one side race ever
with some tuning 399 kw at a 650 kg which makes it pretty mean
RMBootneck
Mar 22, 07:59 PM
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
VERY well said!
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
VERY well said!
maelstromr
Apr 19, 05:33 PM
Is that we here in ka world know our Apple products....
But out in the Minnesota farmlands.... They may not have seen the ads....
Met up with another farming buddy... A couple of beers.
Gone to a tech shop to buy a smartphone n thought through the beer bottle they bought themselves a samsung iPhone.
:rolleyes:
/sarcasm
So what's your point? The presence of competition does not harm a competitor? Seems contrary to that whole "competition" word.
And your next point is what? A successful company should allow a competitor to use it's technology/patents to compete with it? All at the same time as just taking it from all the competitors that sue Apple on the other companies' patents, right?
How many anti-Apple suing trolls here are also pro-other company suing Apple trolls in other threads?
So you don't like the way IP law works? Vote for someone who will change the legal structure. Until then, corporations are going to work in the environment your legislators and courts created. Hate the game, not the player.
But out in the Minnesota farmlands.... They may not have seen the ads....
Met up with another farming buddy... A couple of beers.
Gone to a tech shop to buy a smartphone n thought through the beer bottle they bought themselves a samsung iPhone.
:rolleyes:
/sarcasm
So what's your point? The presence of competition does not harm a competitor? Seems contrary to that whole "competition" word.
And your next point is what? A successful company should allow a competitor to use it's technology/patents to compete with it? All at the same time as just taking it from all the competitors that sue Apple on the other companies' patents, right?
How many anti-Apple suing trolls here are also pro-other company suing Apple trolls in other threads?
So you don't like the way IP law works? Vote for someone who will change the legal structure. Until then, corporations are going to work in the environment your legislators and courts created. Hate the game, not the player.
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
miniConvert
Mar 22, 12:47 PM
Samsung redesigned the 10.1 'just like that' did they? Wow, that's going to be one impressive piece of carefully considered and crafted engineering if they poured over it for such an extensive amount of time.... </sarcasm>
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
Mike84
Apr 25, 03:13 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don’t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
You are right, but you are wrong in mentioning that you need a fence and a sign saying "NO TRESPASSING" for cops to come in and take a look. Look up the cases from the United States Supreme Court that hold otherwise. That will not stop cops and it has not stopped cops. For example, cases where people were growing pot in their barn. Cops jumped the fence, peeked into the barn, saw the rugs, boom you have a warrant because it is based on probable cause. . However, this is not the point of the discussion here.
I think Apple just moved for summary judgment as a matter of law and get with it because these attorneys are trying to see if Apple will settle, but I highly doubt they will even consider it.
"If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one."
This lawyer needs to go back to law school. The 4th amendment, which protects our right to privacy, is to prevent the government from infringing on that right. Last I checked Apple was not part of the government.
Also, Apple is not tracking anything. They simple have a file on your phone that has all of this information. (correct me if I am wrong).
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don’t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
You are right, but you are wrong in mentioning that you need a fence and a sign saying "NO TRESPASSING" for cops to come in and take a look. Look up the cases from the United States Supreme Court that hold otherwise. That will not stop cops and it has not stopped cops. For example, cases where people were growing pot in their barn. Cops jumped the fence, peeked into the barn, saw the rugs, boom you have a warrant because it is based on probable cause. . However, this is not the point of the discussion here.
I think Apple just moved for summary judgment as a matter of law and get with it because these attorneys are trying to see if Apple will settle, but I highly doubt they will even consider it.
"If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one."
This lawyer needs to go back to law school. The 4th amendment, which protects our right to privacy, is to prevent the government from infringing on that right. Last I checked Apple was not part of the government.
Also, Apple is not tracking anything. They simple have a file on your phone that has all of this information. (correct me if I am wrong).
rt_brained
Aug 11, 07:55 PM
Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
And coin-operated.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
And coin-operated.
littleman23408
Dec 3, 03:03 PM
Do you get a prize car for finishing a series in Aspec races with all gold? Like I just need to finish one more race, but I can't find a used car to get into it. It's the first series of races, beginner I am assuming.
lyngo
Apr 7, 10:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wow. This is pretty huge.
Wow. This is pretty huge.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 8, 11:40 PM
i don't know, i still think the Gran Turismo series is the best as far as real driving simulation. by far. and the number of copies sold backs that up
If sales are the judge of a games greatness, then Mario Kart on the Wii is the greatest racing game of all time. No doubt about it. The number of copies sold backs that up. Sorry GT.
If sales are the judge of a games greatness, then Mario Kart on the Wii is the greatest racing game of all time. No doubt about it. The number of copies sold backs that up. Sorry GT.
rovex
Mar 22, 12:49 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
artistry
Nov 29, 03:06 AM
I can't see this standing up in the EU - it would be knocked down at first attempt in the European Court I'm sure.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:38 AM
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
tortoise
Aug 7, 06:14 PM
Why not just improve the Backup program that comes with .Mac or include it for free? Do we really need another interface? To me it looks like form over function.
You are out of your mind. A true versioning file system is insanely useful, and has been a Holy Grail file system feature that has not existed largely because it requires some significant unused disk space and disk performance to use it -- it is not a cheap feature to implement. Once you have it and applications start to use its functionality it will be like the internet: you will wonder how you got on in the computer world without it.
I do not care how they presented it, if it works as advertised then it is a "killer app" that will cause many people to part with their hard-earned money (myself included).
You are out of your mind. A true versioning file system is insanely useful, and has been a Holy Grail file system feature that has not existed largely because it requires some significant unused disk space and disk performance to use it -- it is not a cheap feature to implement. Once you have it and applications start to use its functionality it will be like the internet: you will wonder how you got on in the computer world without it.
I do not care how they presented it, if it works as advertised then it is a "killer app" that will cause many people to part with their hard-earned money (myself included).
gkarris
Apr 7, 10:34 PM
Gosh, over the many years, it's always been on then off then on then off as far as Best Buy selling Apple products....
Looks like we are approaching the "off" part of the cycle... :eek:
(no worries, after a year or so, it will be "on" again)
LOL...
Looks like we are approaching the "off" part of the cycle... :eek:
(no worries, after a year or so, it will be "on" again)
LOL...
anomie
Apr 11, 02:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
LarryC
Mar 26, 01:12 AM
im using snow leopard, will all my documents and apps gone if i upgrade to lion ?
The short answer is no. There are always different types of installation. One is called archive and install. You really should have your things backed up to another hard drive or to disc just in case anything goes wrong. Actually everybody "should" have all of their data backed up to a reliable source at all times.
The short answer is no. There are always different types of installation. One is called archive and install. You really should have your things backed up to another hard drive or to disc just in case anything goes wrong. Actually everybody "should" have all of their data backed up to a reliable source at all times.
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
Trowaman
Aug 7, 01:22 AM
Ok, my predictions:
Leopard (iChat 4.0 ready to go for the iPhone)
Mac Pro
XServe (MacServe?)
new displays (iSights and probably IR. If I get my wish, S-Video and RCA in)
Paris: All about the iTunes and iPod ending with Steve saying available worldwide "except here." Possible iPhone here.
the other 4 Macs will be upgraded at some point going into Q1 with MBP and iMac getting Core 2 and MB and Minis getting the top Core Duos.
Leopard (iChat 4.0 ready to go for the iPhone)
Mac Pro
XServe (MacServe?)
new displays (iSights and probably IR. If I get my wish, S-Video and RCA in)
Paris: All about the iTunes and iPod ending with Steve saying available worldwide "except here." Possible iPhone here.
the other 4 Macs will be upgraded at some point going into Q1 with MBP and iMac getting Core 2 and MB and Minis getting the top Core Duos.
wonderspark
Apr 5, 05:20 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
I respectfully disagree. Most of the film festivals we submitted our movie to prefer Blu-ray. That way they get the same quality for previewing as they do for projection, should they accept it. We haven't even had to make an HDCAM copy yet.
I respectfully disagree. Most of the film festivals we submitted our movie to prefer Blu-ray. That way they get the same quality for previewing as they do for projection, should they accept it. We haven't even had to make an HDCAM copy yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment