ChazUK
Apr 19, 01:29 PM
From Nilay's post:
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. That does look like an early Galaxy S (dark chrome bezel to boot!). Interesting find.
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. That does look like an early Galaxy S (dark chrome bezel to boot!). Interesting find.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 04:35 AM
Going public has other dimensions. There's more to business than the consumer and executive/investor ends. Going public allows people to force coporations to act in outside interests, otherwise it's just a private tyranny.
You make it sound like companies have an obligation of going public. And what you may say MIGHT be true, you are also forgetting that most of the crummy companies in existence are public. Enron was public, Microsoft is public, Exxon is public, Chiquita is public. The list goes on. And you are forgetting that while in theory investors might force changes in the company, usually they don't. Only time they force changes are when the company is not delivering "enough" ROI for the investors. Investors are the primary reason why we have "quarter-capitalism", where long-term benefits are sacrificed for short-term profits.
You make it sound like companies have an obligation of going public. And what you may say MIGHT be true, you are also forgetting that most of the crummy companies in existence are public. Enron was public, Microsoft is public, Exxon is public, Chiquita is public. The list goes on. And you are forgetting that while in theory investors might force changes in the company, usually they don't. Only time they force changes are when the company is not delivering "enough" ROI for the investors. Investors are the primary reason why we have "quarter-capitalism", where long-term benefits are sacrificed for short-term profits.
Badandy
Sep 17, 10:31 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
steve_hill4
Sep 8, 01:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Apple released no details to retailers prior to an announcement, or if they did, they had an NDA to prevent that information leaking out to the public.
One person at work, (who seems to be desperate to know when the new iPods will be out), contacted our head offices to speak to the people in charge of buying in new products and the quantities. She was assured our branch would have "new iPods" by next Saturday.
1. If this is true, it fits in with the Tuesday announcement
2. They may have been telling her about new stocks, (unlikely since we haven't been having stock issues of late)
3. Our buyers have given us information before that has never materialised
4. It's pretty obvious to most, especially those that visit rumour sites like me, that after one year, new models are on their way, and the special event on Tuesday will see them announced
5. She is new and doesn't understand how the company works. If we were to get them in by Saturday 16th, they would have to arrive at our national warehouse around the 12th or 14th at the absolute latest. That would mean going by other shipping beforehand, the latest they could leave China would be perhaps Monday.
Since no other information like this has come forward, I remain sceptical we will get them in by then, but we got the nanos after 7 days last year, so it is possible. Four days is unlikely though, so they would have to ship them before they are announced. This would come back to others leaking information about boxes shipping and I haven't heard much along those lines yet. I again say though I remain fully confident in them being announced on Tuesday, just sceptical of the information that was given. If it was genuine, I think Apple needs to remind all of their NDAs.
We shall see.
One person at work, (who seems to be desperate to know when the new iPods will be out), contacted our head offices to speak to the people in charge of buying in new products and the quantities. She was assured our branch would have "new iPods" by next Saturday.
1. If this is true, it fits in with the Tuesday announcement
2. They may have been telling her about new stocks, (unlikely since we haven't been having stock issues of late)
3. Our buyers have given us information before that has never materialised
4. It's pretty obvious to most, especially those that visit rumour sites like me, that after one year, new models are on their way, and the special event on Tuesday will see them announced
5. She is new and doesn't understand how the company works. If we were to get them in by Saturday 16th, they would have to arrive at our national warehouse around the 12th or 14th at the absolute latest. That would mean going by other shipping beforehand, the latest they could leave China would be perhaps Monday.
Since no other information like this has come forward, I remain sceptical we will get them in by then, but we got the nanos after 7 days last year, so it is possible. Four days is unlikely though, so they would have to ship them before they are announced. This would come back to others leaking information about boxes shipping and I haven't heard much along those lines yet. I again say though I remain fully confident in them being announced on Tuesday, just sceptical of the information that was given. If it was genuine, I think Apple needs to remind all of their NDAs.
We shall see.
thisisahughes
Apr 20, 10:13 AM
Should be studying in law school instead of engineering. No innovative products but loads of cash to be made:D Lawsuits everywhere.
lol. kudos.
lol. kudos.
zombierunner
Apr 30, 03:10 PM
i really hope prices go down a little bit .. $150 atleast ..
iRobby
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
afd
Apr 11, 08:15 AM
I can't imagine how Apple could have thought they could keep that private key secret forever.
been secret since '04
been secret since '04
/Moke
Mar 29, 02:29 PM
No. Looser and looser = extra extra baggy! :D
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 02:11 PM
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
ECUpirate44
Mar 30, 01:14 PM
Remember when Jobs and Gates met for an interview with All Things Digital a few years back? I wonder if things like this tarnish their friendship or if they consider it to be strictly business.
hondaboy945
Sep 15, 07:05 PM
Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?
thats whatI was thinking. But we could both be wrong.
thats whatI was thinking. But we could both be wrong.
Icaras
Apr 19, 08:27 AM
word. it's called competition. omg the second car manufacturer designed a car with an engine and 4 wheels, he must be copying. lol
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
Chris Bangle
Sep 1, 11:45 AM
all i wont is a touch screen ipod, im not buying a mac till january. But a 30 inch imac would be amazing.. 23 inch will do though.
infernohellion
Sep 26, 09:40 AM
Well what about Thailand where the law says GSM phones must not be exclusive to only one carrier (all must be unlocked)??
adamfilip
Sep 14, 07:56 AM
just saw this on the register
not sure if its been posted before
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/14/apple_iphone_at_large/
not sure if its been posted before
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/14/apple_iphone_at_large/
wpwj40e
Sep 12, 05:36 PM
Kinda bummed. I really, really wanted a wide screen.....And since my 5g ipod ended up with my son - was in the market for one.
What to do...buy the 5.5G or hold off a little longer - maybe there will be a wide screen yet this year....
I do like most of the new features and even games. Was not impressed with the rest of the announcmeent.
What to do...buy the 5.5G or hold off a little longer - maybe there will be a wide screen yet this year....
I do like most of the new features and even games. Was not impressed with the rest of the announcmeent.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:54 AM
Key things said in your statement. First, believe it or not, people do spend a lot of time out, people have lives. I'm not saying you don't necessarily but, not everyone sits at home. When the time comes when its obvious physical media is actually dead, internet connectivity sure will be more reliable at that point. Its hard to say what data charges and such will be like at that point. Also, not everyone has or is able to get unlimited data so quit acting basing your arguments on that people do. Also, I'm assuming you have AT&T. In case you didn't know AT&T is already sending out messages to people with abnormally high data usage...even to people on unlimited plans saying stop it or we will change your plan to one our current higher end plans....i.e. 4GB. So until, cellular data is stable, reliable and the carriers do NOT want to gouge the customer on data....I want my local storage. One more point, physical media is one thing and local storage in terms of what we're discussing is not exactly the same thing. You're talking about CDs, blu rays and such. I'm talking about digital storage of .mp3/.aac/.mp4 and such. Not exactly the same.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
rorschach
Mar 23, 04:25 PM
Ridiculous. :rolleyes: Don't pull it.
jettredmont
Aug 23, 09:35 PM
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
IMHO, this is the primary motivation for the settlement from Apple's perspective. $100M isn't really "nothing" as others have suggested (believe me, Steve fights for every $100M going into the bank, and doubly hard when it leaves again!) However, it's a fairly cheap obstruction to throw down on Zune.
Will MS license Creative's patent too? Note that the press release says that if others license then Apple gets some reimbursement.
If MS refuses to license, will that $100M fund a legal battle against them next? It will go a ways towards that battle, anyway. And, Creative vs MS is a lot more likely for Creative to win than Creative vs (MS and Apple). This settlement adds credibility to Creative's claims.
IMHO, $100M spent here will help Apple in the iPod:Zune battle at least as much as $100M spent on marketing would have. Plus, it eliminates the overhang of the legal action and potential settlement/decision down the line.
IMHO, this is the primary motivation for the settlement from Apple's perspective. $100M isn't really "nothing" as others have suggested (believe me, Steve fights for every $100M going into the bank, and doubly hard when it leaves again!) However, it's a fairly cheap obstruction to throw down on Zune.
Will MS license Creative's patent too? Note that the press release says that if others license then Apple gets some reimbursement.
If MS refuses to license, will that $100M fund a legal battle against them next? It will go a ways towards that battle, anyway. And, Creative vs MS is a lot more likely for Creative to win than Creative vs (MS and Apple). This settlement adds credibility to Creative's claims.
IMHO, $100M spent here will help Apple in the iPod:Zune battle at least as much as $100M spent on marketing would have. Plus, it eliminates the overhang of the legal action and potential settlement/decision down the line.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 10:35 AM
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.Thanks for the additional research. Still, you're taxing the current 180w power supply. I don't think the Power Mac G5 is a good example either. Are we expecting a redesign for Conroe? Not that I don't WANT Conroe in the iMac. It just seems a bit much.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/12/ibm_90nm_g5_chip/
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-powerenv/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/12/ibm_90nm_g5_chip/
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-powerenv/
jasper77
Sep 5, 04:58 PM
LOL. I understand that you're speaking in jest, but honestly I don't see Apple implementing the Movie Store differently w/ PC users. Remember that the iPod/iTunes didn't explode in popularity until they were PC-friendly. If the PC side had anything different in it's implementation like your post implies, then I highly doubt the iPod/iTunes would have been as successful as it is now.
w00master
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
w00master
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
wildmac
Sep 10, 12:02 PM
If you need it get it now. If you can wait 6 months then wait. What is out is better than what you have, just be ready than in 6 months there will be something better. This is always the case even if you stay in the Win Camp.
Yep, if you want an iMac, then buy it NOW. The laptops will soon see upgrades, but the rest of the product line is up-to-date.
And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.
Yep, if you want an iMac, then buy it NOW. The laptops will soon see upgrades, but the rest of the product line is up-to-date.
And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.
nemaslov
Sep 26, 11:58 AM
Hey the Cingular deal is only six months exclusive, like the RAZR was. So you can all get it probably many more places afterwards and all of the bugs will be worked out by then.. I use Cingular and LOVE it due to the coverage in San Francisco which is difficult due to the seven hills. May other carriers I tried before including verizon and t mobile were much worse here.
Buy I have an 80GB iPod with 18,ooo songs so this thing will me useless to me. But it sure sounds cool!!
Buy I have an 80GB iPod with 18,ooo songs so this thing will me useless to me. But it sure sounds cool!!