blacktape242
Mar 30, 11:43 AM
I want my 5 mins back from reading this article and writing this post......
:apple:
:apple:
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
CalBoy
Mar 29, 01:20 PM
He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
I doubt Oracle would get that at this stage of the game. It would deprive millions of people of their hardware and it would be a disaster for handset suppliers. No patent judge in his right mind would grant that kind of a request.
What's more likely is a monetary settlement based on the number of handsets running the patent being infringed.
I doubt Oracle would get that at this stage of the game. It would deprive millions of people of their hardware and it would be a disaster for handset suppliers. No patent judge in his right mind would grant that kind of a request.
What's more likely is a monetary settlement based on the number of handsets running the patent being infringed.
iStudentUK
Apr 20, 06:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
http://johnpilger.com/videos
He's even got an awesome interview with Julian Assange. His documentary "The War You Don't See" is a must watch though.
What does he say about the coming New World Order that Bush and Obama keep talking about, and also the coming North American Union + Amero?
I'll personally give you 1 million Ameros if that happens in my lifetime (hopefully another 60 years!).
I'm still finding it hard not to believe this is a parody.
http://johnpilger.com/videos
He's even got an awesome interview with Julian Assange. His documentary "The War You Don't See" is a must watch though.
What does he say about the coming New World Order that Bush and Obama keep talking about, and also the coming North American Union + Amero?
I'll personally give you 1 million Ameros if that happens in my lifetime (hopefully another 60 years!).
I'm still finding it hard not to believe this is a parody.
pianoman
Sep 12, 02:26 PM
for me, the hardest part will be deciding whether or not to go with the 30 or go with the 80. i'll have to check it out at the store when they get them in stock.
i'm not sure if i want to keep my nano just because...
decisions, decisions
i'm not sure if i want to keep my nano just because...
decisions, decisions
BWhaler
Sep 14, 02:37 AM
This product cannot come soon enough.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
MiamiBourne
Apr 13, 04:49 PM
AirFrame and AirView, I dont see these in the iPad app store anymore...
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 12:03 PM
I read a good tweet about this:
Password protect your phone. Password protect your computer. Nothing has changed.
The iPhone is sold on how easy it is to use and that you don't have to fiddle with things. But it's shown time and time again that despite everything they do to keep it as simple and user friendy as possible, it's not true.
Most iPhone users won't have a clue about how to do this. If Apple had actually encrypted the file this wouldn't have been this huge problem.
Password protect your phone. Password protect your computer. Nothing has changed.
The iPhone is sold on how easy it is to use and that you don't have to fiddle with things. But it's shown time and time again that despite everything they do to keep it as simple and user friendy as possible, it's not true.
Most iPhone users won't have a clue about how to do this. If Apple had actually encrypted the file this wouldn't have been this huge problem.
EagerDragon
Sep 13, 10:27 PM
a combo, phone, PDA, Mp3 player and I am sold. Unlike the iTV I would see a lot of value on this.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
goodcow
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
The problem with stolen Apple products would be no Applecare.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
miles01110
Mar 23, 04:17 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Misplaced Mage
Sep 18, 05:58 PM
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
generik
Aug 29, 07:37 AM
Lol.
Store is still up, i don't think today is the day.
What time is it in the Americas now?
Store is still up, i don't think today is the day.
What time is it in the Americas now?
danbolling
Aug 31, 12:49 PM
Some things are coming together that are not pointed out in the post about the upcoming new iTMS (iTunes Media Store)
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
cult hero
May 3, 03:07 PM
"Apple OSX" and "3rd party device drivers" defines a place that is not a "happy place"
No. No it's not.
No. No it's not.
macman2790
Sep 9, 04:59 PM
all i want is a merom macbook pro
ImAlex
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
Apple can design better than that. It will probably not look like that. Why? Because they do not want it to look exactly as the Nano as it would confuse people. That design does not make sense to me.
I think and hope they will make a new Newton, more a Apple PDA than a iPod with phone capabilities.
It is time for Apple to release a phone, but not just an iPod Phone. Look at the patent Apple made some days ago, it looks more like a PDA/Smartphone than phone which is great.
I think and hope they will make a new Newton, more a Apple PDA than a iPod with phone capabilities.
It is time for Apple to release a phone, but not just an iPod Phone. Look at the patent Apple made some days ago, it looks more like a PDA/Smartphone than phone which is great.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 23, 04:52 PM
Surely these apps fall foul of the rule about no lasting entertainment?
They seem pointless if you're already drunk to be able to use it.
They seem pointless if you're already drunk to be able to use it.
kildjean
Apr 29, 09:35 AM
If Microsoft ever wants to get back at the top of their game they need to fire Ballmer and bring some new blood to the helm. They are as stagnant as IBM was when Microsoft rose to power.
Vegasman
Apr 28, 10:36 PM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
spydr
Sep 21, 09:25 PM
I have an idea:
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.
Winni
Nov 14, 12:37 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Floop
Oct 28, 02:38 PM
...and by the way yes this thread has gone off topic, partly my fault because I couldn't believe some stupid posts and felt obliged to respond. I won't drag the thread any further down this path because it's not the right place to do it.
I saw the Greenpeace activists today at MacExpo. There were two outside the venue, and about six at the train station nearby.
They were quiet and calm, but I do actually agree with the Event Organisers that kicked them out - if you break the rules, you pay the consequences, and they admit they broke the rules, so boo hoo to them.
I also question the 'environmentally friendliness' of them handing out thousands of flyers to anybody who walks past, so the flyers end up strewn across the street at the end of the day, or chucked away.
I think their argument has also been shot to pieces by counter evidence.
I have respect for people who take a stand on principles, but not people who take a stand because they want to be subversive or outspoken for the sake of it. I believe Greenpeace have lost the plot.
I saw the Greenpeace activists today at MacExpo. There were two outside the venue, and about six at the train station nearby.
They were quiet and calm, but I do actually agree with the Event Organisers that kicked them out - if you break the rules, you pay the consequences, and they admit they broke the rules, so boo hoo to them.
I also question the 'environmentally friendliness' of them handing out thousands of flyers to anybody who walks past, so the flyers end up strewn across the street at the end of the day, or chucked away.
I think their argument has also been shot to pieces by counter evidence.
I have respect for people who take a stand on principles, but not people who take a stand because they want to be subversive or outspoken for the sake of it. I believe Greenpeace have lost the plot.
No comments:
Post a Comment