MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 01:38 PM
I refuse to waste any more time arguing with someone that doesn't understand what he's talking about and thinks a niche format will rule the world in short order and that adaptors are 10 cents on the dollar for complex new high speed connectors. Good luck arguing with this guy. I'm done wasting my time.
cube
Apr 22, 07:52 PM
I would also prefer AMD, but I don't think there will be Llanos low-powered enough for the MBA.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
An important detail is that one needs to add the graphics TDP to those Intel numbers, so there's still hope for some Llano goodness.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
An important detail is that one needs to add the graphics TDP to those Intel numbers, so there's still hope for some Llano goodness.
asdf542
Apr 14, 01:44 PM
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 15, 06:50 PM
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
BC2009
Mar 30, 12:18 PM
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Optimus Frag
Apr 23, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ok. So it's lack of compromise that some are keen to avoid.
Understandable. That's if the next MBA has the 3000HD in it of course. Who's knows what cooking in Apple' R&D dungeon.
I just know from being a nerd myself, how much some can get hung up on such technical points.
It's just that core group of people seem to want a MBA to able to gene sequence the complete human genome before lunchtime before they'll buy one.
I on the other hand would like it to be very portable and do the stuff I do on my 3 yr old iMac, surf, email, BBC iPlayer some light video editing and photo storage. Won't be getting one for at least 6 months anyway so maybe open CL will be on a Intel graphics chip by then.
Ok. So it's lack of compromise that some are keen to avoid.
Understandable. That's if the next MBA has the 3000HD in it of course. Who's knows what cooking in Apple' R&D dungeon.
I just know from being a nerd myself, how much some can get hung up on such technical points.
It's just that core group of people seem to want a MBA to able to gene sequence the complete human genome before lunchtime before they'll buy one.
I on the other hand would like it to be very portable and do the stuff I do on my 3 yr old iMac, surf, email, BBC iPlayer some light video editing and photo storage. Won't be getting one for at least 6 months anyway so maybe open CL will be on a Intel graphics chip by then.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 10:48 AM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
while they can not break out of existing deals it can effect future deals.
As for the current agreement when things like Apple sueing Samsung happens and Samsung is a major supplier this is when shipments get delayed or start arriving late. Apple falls to down on the list as clients that are important when supplies run short.
If Apple needs a rush order guess what not going to happen. Generally you do not want to piss off your big supplier because they can cause you a world of problems with out breaking any contract.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
while they can not break out of existing deals it can effect future deals.
As for the current agreement when things like Apple sueing Samsung happens and Samsung is a major supplier this is when shipments get delayed or start arriving late. Apple falls to down on the list as clients that are important when supplies run short.
If Apple needs a rush order guess what not going to happen. Generally you do not want to piss off your big supplier because they can cause you a world of problems with out breaking any contract.
bloodycape
Aug 24, 02:34 AM
What?:)
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
Surely
Apr 25, 09:54 AM
Your mother approved of you slamming on the brakes and causing a car that potentially had a baby on board to swerve at a high speed? All because the car was blocking you from arriving at your destination a few minutes faster?
Are you ****ing kidding me?
I don't like people who drive slow in the passing lane either, but I would NEVER put people's lives in danger just to save a few minutes on my drive. Think about that.
You probably thought you'd post your story and get a few laughs. Well, after reading your OP and subsequent posts, look who turned out to be the joke (it's you, BTW).
Oh, and change your ****ing avatar.
Are you ****ing kidding me?
I don't like people who drive slow in the passing lane either, but I would NEVER put people's lives in danger just to save a few minutes on my drive. Think about that.
You probably thought you'd post your story and get a few laughs. Well, after reading your OP and subsequent posts, look who turned out to be the joke (it's you, BTW).
Oh, and change your ****ing avatar.
Half Glass
Sep 14, 10:09 AM
Co-branding is a better idea because yes, unless they make a camera that would take Canon or Nikon lenses on their own it would be a failure as a pro tool.
--HG
--HG
Hal Jordan
Apr 20, 08:21 PM
From Nilay's post:
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. Good find. How is Apple even gonna dispute that.
Bottom Line, with this lawsuit, Apple has clearly declared they see Samsung as a very real threat. Samsung is MASSIVE. They are a true OEM. Look how they were able to pull off a revised Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a span of 2 months. That's true OEM muscle being flexed. Apple Knows this, hence their request to have the Galaxy devices removed from market.
What an absolute joke. I'm still a little shocked Apple is even suing.
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. Good find. How is Apple even gonna dispute that.
Bottom Line, with this lawsuit, Apple has clearly declared they see Samsung as a very real threat. Samsung is MASSIVE. They are a true OEM. Look how they were able to pull off a revised Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a span of 2 months. That's true OEM muscle being flexed. Apple Knows this, hence their request to have the Galaxy devices removed from market.
What an absolute joke. I'm still a little shocked Apple is even suing.
gugy
Sep 26, 12:23 PM
Well, it looks like I wont be getting this phone now. Sorry, I'm Verizon and so are all the people I talk to, so I'm not gonna switch for this.
Yeah, I am in the same boat.
For me Cingular is the worst because I can't get it to work at my home and work. I have Verizon, is OK. but at least work. The truth is every carrier has a problem. I am still waiting to find somebody that says their carrier is 100% great and they are satisfied.
I hope iphone will work on other carriers. If not I'll wait until it comes with Verizon or any other carrier other than Cingular.
What good is to have an amazing phone if you can talk or get coverage?
Yeah, I am in the same boat.
For me Cingular is the worst because I can't get it to work at my home and work. I have Verizon, is OK. but at least work. The truth is every carrier has a problem. I am still waiting to find somebody that says their carrier is 100% great and they are satisfied.
I hope iphone will work on other carriers. If not I'll wait until it comes with Verizon or any other carrier other than Cingular.
What good is to have an amazing phone if you can talk or get coverage?
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:31 AM
I can't, but maybe these guys can/will.
That's what I'm hoping. I'm leaning towards the SLA being the answer for this.
That's what I'm hoping. I'm leaning towards the SLA being the answer for this.
Minimoose 360
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
Bye bye built in Superdrive. I'll look back fondly at the five times I used you in the past three years.
You know, I was against the whole "get rid of the optical drive" bandwagon back in '09 when I got my MBP....but in the couple years I've had mine, I've used the thing ONCE.
And if anyone asks, it was for printer drivers (which I probably could have gotten online but I had the disc readily accessible.)
I'm going to soon get rid of mine and throw in a SSD!
You know, I was against the whole "get rid of the optical drive" bandwagon back in '09 when I got my MBP....but in the couple years I've had mine, I've used the thing ONCE.
And if anyone asks, it was for printer drivers (which I probably could have gotten online but I had the disc readily accessible.)
I'm going to soon get rid of mine and throw in a SSD!
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 31, 01:06 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
Stella
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
It says , on iTunes that you have to update your 5G iPod.
The updater isn't there yet.
It says , on iTunes that you have to update your 5G iPod.
The updater isn't there yet.
Chundles
Oct 12, 12:48 PM
Bono, whilst playing a gig in Glasgow, got the whole crowd to be silent and then began slowly clapping his hands. He got the crowd to clap along for a while, the stadium quiet except for the rhythmic clapping...
After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died...
Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop f***king doing it then!!"
True story.
Are we allowed to find that funny because that is quite hilarious. If im not allowed to laugh at it then its not funny... But that is quite funny....
Of course you're meant to find it funny - it's a dead-set pi*ser of a story. I laughed for ages when I heard it.
After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died...
Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop f***king doing it then!!"
True story.
Are we allowed to find that funny because that is quite hilarious. If im not allowed to laugh at it then its not funny... But that is quite funny....
Of course you're meant to find it funny - it's a dead-set pi*ser of a story. I laughed for ages when I heard it.
brepublican
Aug 23, 07:13 PM
WOW. And I thought hell froze over when bootcamp was introduced...
There is nothing unusual with this move, I dont know why it keeps coming up. In fact, its strategic on Creative's part to include it in the settlement. They make good headphones and speakers, and if affixing a 'Made for iPod' tag on them increases revenue, they have nothing to lose. Total profit
There is nothing unusual with this move, I dont know why it keeps coming up. In fact, its strategic on Creative's part to include it in the settlement. They make good headphones and speakers, and if affixing a 'Made for iPod' tag on them increases revenue, they have nothing to lose. Total profit
Pravius
Apr 22, 07:52 AM
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
Hard Drives are mechanical, they die. I would personally use this as a backup and to listen when I am at work. I can have access to my entire music library from multiple devices. I have a 16gb iPhone, my entire library will not come close to fitting on that.
Hard Drives are mechanical, they die. I would personally use this as a backup and to listen when I am at work. I can have access to my entire music library from multiple devices. I have a 16gb iPhone, my entire library will not come close to fitting on that.
Dustman
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
Woot Woot! Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
As long as it doesnt shudder with the OS X animations and it plays 1080p smoothly, why does it matter? Do people really game on an Air?
As long as it doesnt shudder with the OS X animations and it plays 1080p smoothly, why does it matter? Do people really game on an Air?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:09 PM
Black as a color option, please.
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
MacMan86
Apr 12, 04:30 PM
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...
You're quite wrong there. AirPlay IS AirTunes. It's AirTunes + video equivalent of AirTunes. An Airport Express is now an 'AirPlay device'. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay
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...
You're quite wrong there. AirPlay IS AirTunes. It's AirTunes + video equivalent of AirTunes. An Airport Express is now an 'AirPlay device'. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay
ctachme
Jul 14, 09:20 AM
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are widely expected to make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
No comments:
Post a Comment