Kingsly
Sep 1, 02:08 AM
Well for the sake of pontificating.....
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
bbplayer5
Mar 23, 04:22 PM
No one likes drunk drivers. No one. Period. That being said, Apple should not pull the App. Speed trap apps will be next (Trapster)... Keep the app store open to everything thats legal. This is no different than a friend calling you telling you to avoid a check point. Neither is illegal.
Eduardo1971
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
shawnce
Aug 23, 07:43 PM
Yes!
What if at this point Creative can sue Microsoft and others for infringing on "their" patents with the backing of Apple!?
In essence Creative can stay alive selling a few MP3 players, sound cards, and iPod accessories. But they can also sue on demand anybody who tries to use a similar interface (read: everybody). Then Apple jumps in and says: "Hey, we paid. So-and-so should too."
It would also force future and current competitors to try to find another interface, which Apple believes won't work as well.
Apple plays chess very well. This may end up being a very slick move!
Exactly. Apple is playing this to their advantage and not giving others the ability to stick it to them (license with Creative lending weight to Creative's claim) while they fought this thing.
wow.....$100 million. yikes :eek:
Apple has over 9 billion in cash currently... this really is a non-issue in terms of cash outlay.
If you compare it to the risk it removes from a product that makes them billions in a year and the fact it makes it harder for others to duplicate the UI (can use Creative against them) you quickly see it really is a win for Apple.
What if at this point Creative can sue Microsoft and others for infringing on "their" patents with the backing of Apple!?
In essence Creative can stay alive selling a few MP3 players, sound cards, and iPod accessories. But they can also sue on demand anybody who tries to use a similar interface (read: everybody). Then Apple jumps in and says: "Hey, we paid. So-and-so should too."
It would also force future and current competitors to try to find another interface, which Apple believes won't work as well.
Apple plays chess very well. This may end up being a very slick move!
Exactly. Apple is playing this to their advantage and not giving others the ability to stick it to them (license with Creative lending weight to Creative's claim) while they fought this thing.
wow.....$100 million. yikes :eek:
Apple has over 9 billion in cash currently... this really is a non-issue in terms of cash outlay.
If you compare it to the risk it removes from a product that makes them billions in a year and the fact it makes it harder for others to duplicate the UI (can use Creative against them) you quickly see it really is a win for Apple.
jouster
Aug 31, 06:14 PM
I am NOT sold on portable video as a unique selling point...
Obviously, since it wouldn't be unique. There are plenty of PVPs on the market.
Obviously, since it wouldn't be unique. There are plenty of PVPs on the market.
SeaFox
Aug 23, 06:51 PM
100 Million from Apple doesn't sound like very much. For the cash Apple gets the stupid lawsuits dropped, which will ease investor fears. I wouldn't say Creative won anything. They got the money and are going to start making iPod accessories. Sounds like they're going to be dropping their own digital players soon.
If anything Apple just provided seed money for a new accessories maker.
If anything Apple just provided seed money for a new accessories maker.
ChazUK
Apr 20, 01:50 PM
*Shrug* It is probably a feature enabled on the majority of GSM carriers for statistical purposes. Again, I don't see the problem. If this information is used to improve my network coverage, why should I care? If I'm not part of a secret terrorist cell, I don't see how my life is being negatively impacted by this information especially if it does not have any identifiable information attached to it.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
No one was insinuating you were a terrorist so chill, ok?:D
Out of interest, what makes you think its to improve cell coverage? Why is it recording wifi access point names, locations and MAC addresses if that is the case?
If you haven't yet, watch the video. It's quite informative of what is being recorded.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
No one was insinuating you were a terrorist so chill, ok?:D
Out of interest, what makes you think its to improve cell coverage? Why is it recording wifi access point names, locations and MAC addresses if that is the case?
If you haven't yet, watch the video. It's quite informative of what is being recorded.
supremedesigner
Aug 31, 11:33 AM
Merom MacBook Pro + Conroe iMac + speedbumped Mac mini + iTunes movie downloads + widescreen video iPod
Maybe black iMac?
Maybe black iMac?
Mundy
Sep 10, 11:41 AM
Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 01:06 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 13, 07:05 PM
MagnusVonMagnum -
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality.
95% of my music is from my massive CD collection and it has been ripped to Apple Lossless. Does Sonos sell lossless music? If not, WTF are you talking about? You're then comparing apples to oranges. You can just as easily make an Apple lossless library on iTunes as a Flac one for Sonos or XBMC or whatever the heck you prefer to use. One review of Sonos I read says it does not support WMA Lossless (which IS sold online via Music Giants) so that is moot as well.
As for the whole "AAC versus Lossless (of any kind)" thing, I will not even bother arguing about the sonic transparency of 256kbit VBR AAC (Lets just say I've never heard about anyone proving they could tell the difference in a double blind test. I'm well aware of "audiophile" tendencies as I used to be one until I realized 80% of it is snake-oil BS. I now buy what actually makes a difference (high quality speakers and room treatments) and I've never had anyone complain about either of my two systems). I did my own extensive testing between my lossless rips and 256 AAC and I could never tell the difference. For convenience sake, my own lossless library is archive only now. iTunes lets me handle mobile/home in a seamless manner by using only one library for both (something that would be useless with Sonos as it is clearly only home use. You can't play most lossless formats in the car whereas my old JVC and my new factory Subaru WRX player's USB ports handle AAC (as well as MP3 and WMA) just fine. There's nothing quite like taking up to 64GB of music on a USB stick with you on the road. It's like having a 1000 disc CD changer in the car.
lack ops zombies maps layout.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Call
lack ops zombies maps layout.
call of duty black ops zombies
lack ops zombies maps layout.
call of duty black ops zombies
call of duty black ops zombies
lack ops zombies maps layout.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality.
95% of my music is from my massive CD collection and it has been ripped to Apple Lossless. Does Sonos sell lossless music? If not, WTF are you talking about? You're then comparing apples to oranges. You can just as easily make an Apple lossless library on iTunes as a Flac one for Sonos or XBMC or whatever the heck you prefer to use. One review of Sonos I read says it does not support WMA Lossless (which IS sold online via Music Giants) so that is moot as well.
As for the whole "AAC versus Lossless (of any kind)" thing, I will not even bother arguing about the sonic transparency of 256kbit VBR AAC (Lets just say I've never heard about anyone proving they could tell the difference in a double blind test. I'm well aware of "audiophile" tendencies as I used to be one until I realized 80% of it is snake-oil BS. I now buy what actually makes a difference (high quality speakers and room treatments) and I've never had anyone complain about either of my two systems). I did my own extensive testing between my lossless rips and 256 AAC and I could never tell the difference. For convenience sake, my own lossless library is archive only now. iTunes lets me handle mobile/home in a seamless manner by using only one library for both (something that would be useless with Sonos as it is clearly only home use. You can't play most lossless formats in the car whereas my old JVC and my new factory Subaru WRX player's USB ports handle AAC (as well as MP3 and WMA) just fine. There's nothing quite like taking up to 64GB of music on a USB stick with you on the road. It's like having a 1000 disc CD changer in the car.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 14, 08:28 AM
Most likely. I'm not a betting person, but Apple usually rolls out new pro machines during these types of events and what better way to show off the MBPs running C2D than a demonstration of Aperture 2.0. :)
Yup. I agree. And I bet the new MBPs will ship immediately as well. What would be really cool is if Apple lowered the price of Aperture to $199 or so to make it more affordable to the photo piddlers among us. After all, surely Aperture 2 is going to have massive hardware and GPU requirements (read: QuadCore Mac + 4GB RAM + X1900 video card). That is really where Apple makes it's cash. Just dreaming, of course, because I can't justify a $300 software package when I'm just a dabbler. Lightroom beta has been fun though.
Yup. I agree. And I bet the new MBPs will ship immediately as well. What would be really cool is if Apple lowered the price of Aperture to $199 or so to make it more affordable to the photo piddlers among us. After all, surely Aperture 2 is going to have massive hardware and GPU requirements (read: QuadCore Mac + 4GB RAM + X1900 video card). That is really where Apple makes it's cash. Just dreaming, of course, because I can't justify a $300 software package when I'm just a dabbler. Lightroom beta has been fun though.
1984
Sep 14, 04:53 AM
I think that the phone interface won't have a click-wheel. Rather, it will be all screen with an on-screen wheel changing to an on-screen keypad. No slider action whatsoever. Maybe a hard switch for on/off, answer, and phonebook, but that's about all I'd put on the phone. It'll save on cost and hardware complexity too, not having to include a wheel.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
NT1440
Feb 26, 12:45 PM
They say EVERY YEAR that apple is under attack from more threats.
dmelgar
Mar 23, 05:19 PM
You counter point is just as silly.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 05:01 AM
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
LondonCentral
Mar 29, 02:15 PM
Someone needs to bookmark this thread so we can come back to it in 2015. If there's a new CEO (or group of CEO's) for Apple and Nokia/MS have a brilliant partnership, I don't see where the humor is. Four years is a hell of a long time for a new OS to mature.
greg6028
Sep 14, 08:50 AM
It's coming soon!
Thinking of the event last Tuesday, it was interesting that Steve finished the Keynote with,
On your desktop, in your car, in your pocket in your home theater....
He was pointing out where Apple products are - so why not your phone.
Jobs had a lot of events last year in the final quarter. I can see him doing another one soon.
(I know there is one coming up next week, but my bet on one in Oct. for the iPhone!)
Thinking of the event last Tuesday, it was interesting that Steve finished the Keynote with,
On your desktop, in your car, in your pocket in your home theater....
He was pointing out where Apple products are - so why not your phone.
Jobs had a lot of events last year in the final quarter. I can see him doing another one soon.
(I know there is one coming up next week, but my bet on one in Oct. for the iPhone!)
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 01:06 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
ericswyatt
Apr 30, 02:48 PM
Given what we know, this may be a pretty minor bump in specs...if so, will the Apple stores have some "current" (now) soon to be "older" (on Tuesday) models marked down? Or, will the online store pretty quickly have some on mark-down like they did with the 1st Gen iPads when the iPad2 came out. Just looking for some thoughts from the Mac Vets, here...
I'm looking for a machine to replace my win7 box, 20 inch screen...to do basics on, mostly...writing, social media, internet, some basic video editing (nothing complicated), some basic music editing (again, simple stuff, nothing intensive), and minor web site work.
I'm looking for a machine to replace my win7 box, 20 inch screen...to do basics on, mostly...writing, social media, internet, some basic video editing (nothing complicated), some basic music editing (again, simple stuff, nothing intensive), and minor web site work.
MacRumors
Mar 29, 11:07 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/29/idc-projects-windows-phone-to-top-iphone-in-market-share-by-2015/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:12 PM
Yes, they were running away and unarmed. Read the article before making such an idiotic post.
If they were running away and unarmed then the security guard was in the wrong.
Tennessee v Garner says that you cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back.
If they were running away and unarmed then the security guard was in the wrong.
Tennessee v Garner says that you cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back.
dime21
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
Do any of these suits ever actually get resolved?
no, they languish in the courts for years, what with all the appeals and what not. eventually, after 6 or 7 years have gone by, and all the products and technologies involved have lost their relevance and been obsoleted, and all the people involved has either left the company, or forgotten the details, the two sides will reach a settlement agreement, usually involving some kind of stock swap, licensing agreement, or other shady shenanigans instead of real actual money. welcome to the world of corporate law.
no, they languish in the courts for years, what with all the appeals and what not. eventually, after 6 or 7 years have gone by, and all the products and technologies involved have lost their relevance and been obsoleted, and all the people involved has either left the company, or forgotten the details, the two sides will reach a settlement agreement, usually involving some kind of stock swap, licensing agreement, or other shady shenanigans instead of real actual money. welcome to the world of corporate law.
No comments:
Post a Comment