DTphonehome
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
aristobrat
Sep 12, 06:26 PM
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
citizenzen
Mar 28, 11:49 AM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:56 PM
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
The odds favor chance.
The odds favor chance.
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 13, 07:16 AM
This thread reads like a bunch of wanna-be's crying for attention. All this talk that real professionals will be disappointed. First off, if this is a conference for production professionals, and you weren't there, kinda already makes you sound like an also-ran. Not to say that every quality professional would be at one event, but if you are truly a professional, you'd know that pointless pontification about a product you've never seen and are judging based on a series of quotes from a one hour presentation isnt very respectable.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
speedriff
Feb 16, 10:34 AM
Yes Android will surpass the iPhone OS as all the phone manufacturers are adopting it (the smart ones anyway, sorry Microshaft). That being said however, Apple does have a problem on it's hands. Google is refining its product and very soon it will give Apple a good run. Right now Apple is king of the good smartphone market and if you want one you have to go to AT&T and give up call reliability for it. Once there is a great option, Apples foray into the cell market is going to be hit hard. Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better. Once they get a decent music program or they make their phones play nice with iTunes and get some really good apps (Hey Google I don't like shopping for apps on my phone) the iPhone will have serious competition. Hey Steve Jobs, you better quit being so hardheaded and give us Flash. Yeah I know it is old tech but most websites use it...get it? The other manufacturers gotta love this about Jobs. I am pretty much an Apple fanboy but I am really starting to think Jobs is a douche. Hopefully he will review the history of other American companies who get successful and sit back and let the others pass them by, taking the marketshare with them. If Jobs and Co. aren't careful that is exactly what is going to happen to Apples wireless share.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:56 PM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
gugy
Sep 12, 03:18 PM
I love it! Great job Apple
![megan fox hairstyles 2011. (edited 4/30/2011 2:07p).]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sqHGW_ejAwzXsgh_yuZ5CwdAj1jaeplRzERx8EnBGQvMlv7NznUti9vlYY09tqO0GO01-wZen31CG5VFuySaVMGRVHgJDXR0JLvI3-z7Qs03mU-R7us8ElF2bMLf68FE7CvwDmxdeSco7l=s0-d "(edited 4/30/2011 2:07p).]")
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
Spectrum
Aug 30, 10:08 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
rhett7660
Mar 11, 10:13 AM
Not to mention the videos of it happening.
Wow.... Devastating to say the least.
Wow.... Devastating to say the least.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 09:22 PM
Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 01:32 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Periastron
Apr 6, 01:15 PM
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
technicolor
Sep 21, 05:52 AM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
kas23
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
Zwopple
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
And the same can be said vice versa. Anyone that wants to program for Windows will need to use .Net and a Windows Box. What is this "because I'm a PC I will complain I can't dev for iPhone" crap?
I'm not starting a PC vs MAC war I'm just stating that it's fairly obvious that 99% of the time you will have to be developing on the operating system that you're developing for. iPhone OS is a limited version of Mac OS X and it's really no surprise it requires you to use XCode which is Mac Only.
Oh and you CAN dev iPhone apps on windows. If you really REALLY want to you can set up all the compiler settings and command line tools to do it. It's just not worth the time.
ciTiger
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
Growth 187.9 %... LOL
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
Dagless
Apr 9, 08:17 AM
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
No comments:
Post a Comment