boxandrew
Sep 6, 06:22 PM
Yes. I want rentals. I almost never want to see the same movie again, so I won't want to store it.
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
Seems a lot of people are agreeing with this. If they don't have a netflix style rental model then I can't see myself using the movie store at all. If they do have rentals, then I'll say bye-bye to netflix the same day.
Having read all the rumours, I'm not holding out much hope... :(
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
Seems a lot of people are agreeing with this. If they don't have a netflix style rental model then I can't see myself using the movie store at all. If they do have rentals, then I'll say bye-bye to netflix the same day.
Having read all the rumours, I'm not holding out much hope... :(
weespeed
Apr 26, 08:16 PM
This may get sticky if MS loses the 'App Store" trademark dispute.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/22/microsoft-patents-apps-that-let-you-buy-things-ballmer-to-go-on
The patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7925548.PN.&OS=PN/7925548&RS=PN/7925548
According to the patent just granted to MS that was applied for in Microsoft came up with the idea of apps that let you buy things.
This is crazy.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/22/microsoft-patents-apps-that-let-you-buy-things-ballmer-to-go-on
The patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7925548.PN.&OS=PN/7925548&RS=PN/7925548
According to the patent just granted to MS that was applied for in Microsoft came up with the idea of apps that let you buy things.
This is crazy.
chukronos
Sep 7, 01:37 PM
I think it will have to be a rental or stream service. There is no way I would pay $14.99 for a lower quality movie at the same price I would pay for a DVD at circuit city or best buy. I know Steve Jobs has been fighting with the movie companies to have a uniform price. Unfortunately, these companies get pretty greedy and don't see the big picture.
I also don't think apple would put out an option, like $14.99 downloads, when that doesn't make sense.
-Chuck
I also don't think apple would put out an option, like $14.99 downloads, when that doesn't make sense.
-Chuck
rjohnstone
Apr 26, 01:27 PM
Its a trademark. Give me a break. What do you think the "typed drawing" said?
That is a very weak argument. Apple does not say they are the only app store. They have the largest app store. And their app store is named App Store. The name is trademarked too.
Try again Knight.
Knight is correct.
You can trademark a graphic that contains words, but have no rights to the actual words themselves.
It is you who needs an education on what a trademark actually is.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
Are you 12?
You're argument is so inaccurate it isn't even funny.
That is a very weak argument. Apple does not say they are the only app store. They have the largest app store. And their app store is named App Store. The name is trademarked too.
Try again Knight.
Knight is correct.
You can trademark a graphic that contains words, but have no rights to the actual words themselves.
It is you who needs an education on what a trademark actually is.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
Are you 12?
You're argument is so inaccurate it isn't even funny.
donlphi
Sep 6, 07:26 PM
CAN YOU SAY, "HERBIE FULLY LOADED IS THE #1 DOWNLOAD ON ITUNES MOVIE STORE"?
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
satirev
Feb 27, 08:08 PM
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac50/tadziodlu/IMG_1442.jpg
does anyone know what hard drive that is?
does anyone know what hard drive that is?
roadbloc
Apr 1, 10:13 AM
Guess why they are the only two removable apps?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
CEAbiscuit
Nov 28, 12:04 PM
guys i think you're being too hard on zune. play with one. it's not THAT bad. it's ugly, but the interface isn't bad at all. I don't plan on buying a zune (my ipod is fine and i'm waiting on a video pod), but it's good to have it in the marketplace for competition sake. maybe apple will actually pay attention to some of the features like the built in radio tuner which is a nobrainer...
I played with it in a Target over the weekend. It IS THAT bad. I agree with the competition aspect, but the the things comes off clunky and akward...
I played with it in a Target over the weekend. It IS THAT bad. I agree with the competition aspect, but the the things comes off clunky and akward...
yac_moda
Jul 20, 02:13 PM
Some people take SOOOOO LONG to get IT :eek: :mad:
BUYING A MAC IS NO LONGER SWITCHING :eek: :eek: :eek: :D
According to the stats all you fine people are posting Apple is now simply growing as fast as all of the other small fast growing PC companies, mostly at Dells expense.
Although my guess is Mac sales will now have a nice peak and LEAD the PC industry around and just after Christmas, this will happen year after year.
Kids will return their regular PCs after Christmas to BUY A MAC ! WOOPPPY !!!
Thus, I think it is very likely that Leopard will be announced right after WWDC and that will lead to EXTREMELY high Mac sales at Christmas this year as it is now clear the Mac is the IN COMPUT and Mac groupies such as myself will be trading up after Leopard and the new laptop design ships :p
HOTDOG :eek: :eek: ;)
OH !
And Apple could start to DOMINATE PC sales again since they are the BEST multi-OS platform, which would also allow them to lead PC sales in the 3rd quarter as that is when most edSales occur.
Notice how low Apple still is in world wide sales, world wide sales are now very significant.
So my guess is Apple sales increase from here over the next year 4 fold !!!
BUYING A MAC IS NO LONGER SWITCHING :eek: :eek: :eek: :D
According to the stats all you fine people are posting Apple is now simply growing as fast as all of the other small fast growing PC companies, mostly at Dells expense.
Although my guess is Mac sales will now have a nice peak and LEAD the PC industry around and just after Christmas, this will happen year after year.
Kids will return their regular PCs after Christmas to BUY A MAC ! WOOPPPY !!!
Thus, I think it is very likely that Leopard will be announced right after WWDC and that will lead to EXTREMELY high Mac sales at Christmas this year as it is now clear the Mac is the IN COMPUT and Mac groupies such as myself will be trading up after Leopard and the new laptop design ships :p
HOTDOG :eek: :eek: ;)
OH !
And Apple could start to DOMINATE PC sales again since they are the BEST multi-OS platform, which would also allow them to lead PC sales in the 3rd quarter as that is when most edSales occur.
Notice how low Apple still is in world wide sales, world wide sales are now very significant.
So my guess is Apple sales increase from here over the next year 4 fold !!!
twoodcc
Dec 19, 01:11 AM
i may add some more over the break
nice. i doubt i'll add anymore over the break. i'm about at my limit i think
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
nice. i doubt i'll add anymore over the break. i'm about at my limit i think
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
The.316
Nov 27, 08:41 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
Hraggleblarg
Sep 29, 10:41 PM
Every time I go by CR's reviews, I make a terrible purchase... I wonder what that says.
toddybody
Apr 19, 11:11 AM
6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950!
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
anjinha
Mar 22, 11:29 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy. I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
They didn't choose to be gay. They either were bisexual and simply chose to date people from the same sex or they were previously in the closet an eventually came out.
Sexuality is about who you're attracted to, not necessarily who you date/have sex with. You can choose who to date/have sex with but not who you're attracted to. Some men live "straight lifestyles" while being attracted to other men. That means they're in the closet, not that they chose to be straight.
There are a lot of people who are born gay. There are also people who were born as bisexuals and then made a choice to either be strait or gay, which probably was the case for your friend.
No, they're still bisexual, they simply choose to date people of the same sex.
They didn't choose to be gay. They either were bisexual and simply chose to date people from the same sex or they were previously in the closet an eventually came out.
Sexuality is about who you're attracted to, not necessarily who you date/have sex with. You can choose who to date/have sex with but not who you're attracted to. Some men live "straight lifestyles" while being attracted to other men. That means they're in the closet, not that they chose to be straight.
There are a lot of people who are born gay. There are also people who were born as bisexuals and then made a choice to either be strait or gay, which probably was the case for your friend.
No, they're still bisexual, they simply choose to date people of the same sex.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 12:55 PM
Apple deserves some crap for all their ill-efforts to trademark "App Store".
App Store [TM]
App Store [TM]
dpMacsmith
Jul 20, 08:20 AM
I think it'll be very awkward for Steve to announce the Mac Pros without a UB version of Photoshop being available, however I can't see CS3 being finished. However we know that Indesign is progressing well, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Chizen came on stage and announced the availability of time limited betas; assuming Adobe are willing to help Apple.
I listened to most of the call and evidently missed this statement. I think it means that CS2, or Office, or Indesign will be out in some form. Probably as public Beta as you suggest. But, this is good news!
Market share increase is good news as well. It should happen, there are a lot of things positive about Apple computer now.
I listened to most of the call and evidently missed this statement. I think it means that CS2, or Office, or Indesign will be out in some form. Probably as public Beta as you suggest. But, this is good news!
Market share increase is good news as well. It should happen, there are a lot of things positive about Apple computer now.
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
I can not believe how long it has taken me to finally bother to register here...And it has taken the release of an iMac to do it.
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
The.316
Nov 27, 08:41 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
DewGuy1999
Feb 25, 02:48 PM
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac50/tadziodlu/IMG_1442.jpg
^ I Like! ^
^ I Like! ^
flottenheimer
Mar 26, 12:12 PM
Very, very, very nice.
For a split second it almost convinced me to sell the family WII. Unfortunately my kids would miss Mario, Kirby, Klonoa and all the other Nintendo heroes way too much if I did that.
For a split second it almost convinced me to sell the family WII. Unfortunately my kids would miss Mario, Kirby, Klonoa and all the other Nintendo heroes way too much if I did that.
CIA
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Also known as the guy who made FCP and Premiere originally.
Also the guy who took a nice iMovie and made it unusable. I hope he doesn't fsck up FCP. Even iMovie had background rendering until he stripped it out.
Also the guy who took a nice iMovie and made it unusable. I hope he doesn't fsck up FCP. Even iMovie had background rendering until he stripped it out.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:35 PM
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
Read the first part of the thread. It's the white border underneath the display. It's where the parts are housed that don't fit behind the display. Well, maybe that's not entirely true. That space is needed for the space behind the display isn't big enough to house all the internals.
So, when a 23" iMac would be released, it will have a whole lot of extra space behind that considerably bigger display. Thus, they might just drop the 'chin'.
Read the first part of the thread. It's the white border underneath the display. It's where the parts are housed that don't fit behind the display. Well, maybe that's not entirely true. That space is needed for the space behind the display isn't big enough to house all the internals.
So, when a 23" iMac would be released, it will have a whole lot of extra space behind that considerably bigger display. Thus, they might just drop the 'chin'.
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 11:01 AM
Automatics are for the elderly, and for fat and/or lazy people.
http://paradoxdgn.com/junk/avatars/trollface.jpg
Wow, really? :rolleyes:
So if someone wants to buy a Corvette, and they're neither elderly, fat, nor lazy, they should shell out extra and order one with a manual transmission rather than buy one off the lot?
If someone wants to buy a Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima, Chevrolet Impala, or a host of similar cars, then they must be either elderly, fat, or lazy, right? Because none of those are available with a manual transmission.
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
No, my first car had a manual transmission (on the column). It was even worse, but that's mostly because the car was a 1965 model and had no air conditioning, no power steering, no power brakes, no power windows, torn-up seats, and oddly chewed through right rear tail light bulbs at a blistering pace. That was back in the days when driving was less of a headache than it is today (I was much younger), but even then I would still rather ride shotgun.
http://paradoxdgn.com/junk/avatars/trollface.jpg
Wow, really? :rolleyes:
So if someone wants to buy a Corvette, and they're neither elderly, fat, nor lazy, they should shell out extra and order one with a manual transmission rather than buy one off the lot?
If someone wants to buy a Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima, Chevrolet Impala, or a host of similar cars, then they must be either elderly, fat, or lazy, right? Because none of those are available with a manual transmission.
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
No, my first car had a manual transmission (on the column). It was even worse, but that's mostly because the car was a 1965 model and had no air conditioning, no power steering, no power brakes, no power windows, torn-up seats, and oddly chewed through right rear tail light bulbs at a blistering pace. That was back in the days when driving was less of a headache than it is today (I was much younger), but even then I would still rather ride shotgun.
