HecubusPro
Aug 31, 12:28 PM
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
I'm aware that Steve isn't going to be there. I guess I just don't see how this is anything newsworthy. We're going to hear about updates, get some announcements. We all know that. It just seems like an odd and obvious macrumors/new story to me. That's all.
On the other hand, I want an iPhone, a widescreen iPod, a larger capacity Nano, a merom MBP, etc. :)
I'm aware that Steve isn't going to be there. I guess I just don't see how this is anything newsworthy. We're going to hear about updates, get some announcements. We all know that. It just seems like an odd and obvious macrumors/new story to me. That's all.
On the other hand, I want an iPhone, a widescreen iPod, a larger capacity Nano, a merom MBP, etc. :)
poppe
Aug 28, 11:11 PM
Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a new enclosure but I think that allowing the prospect of one to be the determining factor in the purchase of a machine is ridiculous. As much as I would LOVE to have a gunmetal colored mbp, if it came out tomorrow I wouldn't be upset that I have a silver one because I truly do love my machine. Apple will always continue to innovate and release new products, and IMO now that they're using intel chips the rate of obsolescence will increase (in terms of harware and performance more than appearance).
Oh yes that makes sense.
I truly and honestly think the only reason I dont praise the Powerbook look is because now look how many computers are getting that aluminum finish and trying to look like Apple... Though they fail, it doesn't mean it still makes me want a change (if that makes sense?).
Oh yes that makes sense.
I truly and honestly think the only reason I dont praise the Powerbook look is because now look how many computers are getting that aluminum finish and trying to look like Apple... Though they fail, it doesn't mean it still makes me want a change (if that makes sense?).
bankshot
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
Because they use the same battery, how can videos play longer and not music?
Either the video playback code was improved to be less power hungry (maybe it uses less CPU, maybe it doesn't need to spin the disk as much), or an improved video chip was put in which uses less power.
Either the video playback code was improved to be less power hungry (maybe it uses less CPU, maybe it doesn't need to spin the disk as much), or an improved video chip was put in which uses less power.
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.
Dagless
May 3, 11:00 AM
Gotta say, the option to get a touchpad instead of a mouse is a huge step forward. I was eyeing up one of those just for fun but the price turned me away (esp. after spending �400 on a Wacom). And since I already have a really good Razer mouse... it's win win! No second mouse to clutter up my drawer.
extraextra
Oct 12, 06:08 PM
This maaay be a stupid question, but does anyone know if these Nano's are going to be sold indefinitely, or will they be a limited product? I'm thinking more along the lines of indefinitely, but I'm not really sure.
ezekielrage_99
Oct 27, 10:06 AM
And Greenpeace wonder why people don't take them very seriously.....
syklee26
Sep 13, 09:39 PM
The only way i'd give up my Treo for an "iPhone" is if it is a true "smart phone". That means PDA functionality. It's got to do everything my Treo does. If it's simply another phone with iTunes on it then it's not worth switching, at least in my opinion.
i think that might come down the road but not at the initial launch. smart phones are not as popular as the normal cell phones. plus, you need the right OS for smart phone and we are talking about a totally separate venture there. hopefully Apple will introduce OSX mobile version
i think that might come down the road but not at the initial launch. smart phones are not as popular as the normal cell phones. plus, you need the right OS for smart phone and we are talking about a totally separate venture there. hopefully Apple will introduce OSX mobile version
e28
Oct 12, 01:46 PM
Check out DeaPeaJay's mockup at AppleInsider. Me want.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
No, this is the Target special edition nano that comes with a Target gift card.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
No, this is the Target special edition nano that comes with a Target gift card.
mcmlxix
Apr 20, 01:17 PM
Law abiding people have nothing to fear. I guess that makes Anne Frank, the subjects of McCarthy, etc. etc. criminals. It's a good thing they didn't have iPhones.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 11:14 AM
Napa is the hardware-platform, composed of Yonah, Intel Mobile 945-chipset and Intel Pro Wireless. AKA third generation Centrino. And since the CPU used in that platform is 32bits, the platfom can be called a 32bit platfom. Note: this has nothing to do with the bitness of the logic-board. Napa64 (or rather: Santa Rosa) is Fourth generation Centrino that uses Merom and new chipset.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Compared to Napa and its Calistoga chipset, Santa Rosa and the Crestline chipset will not be just an evolutionary update, but bring several new features to the user."
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom...
My bad, thanks for the correction. Obviously I've been talking about the 945 (Calistoga) chip.
However, isn't Napa a "set of chips"? There's no "Napa chip", but there is a Napa chipset. Since Apple isn't using the Centrino brand, it's probably not a Napa platform per se.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Compared to Napa and its Calistoga chipset, Santa Rosa and the Crestline chipset will not be just an evolutionary update, but bring several new features to the user."
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom...
My bad, thanks for the correction. Obviously I've been talking about the 945 (Calistoga) chip.
However, isn't Napa a "set of chips"? There's no "Napa chip", but there is a Napa chipset. Since Apple isn't using the Centrino brand, it's probably not a Napa platform per se.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 5, 03:36 PM
The one more thing would be the airport. If they introduce airport with video, they eliminate the need for a mac media center. The airport IS the media center, and you can use *any* mac to power it.
While I agree, I disagree. I am not totally sold on wireless video networking. Filesizes are very large and god forbid it get interfierence with while you are watching a movie. Audio is OK because of very small birate. An airport "media center" is just not a good solution in some cases.
While I agree, I disagree. I am not totally sold on wireless video networking. Filesizes are very large and god forbid it get interfierence with while you are watching a movie. Audio is OK because of very small birate. An airport "media center" is just not a good solution in some cases.
Macmaniac
Sep 5, 12:08 PM
OOOOOooo! The possibilites, I am really looking forward to this! Lets hope MR finds some way to get live coverage!
treblah
Aug 23, 05:31 PM
Good news all around if you ask me. See the NTP vs. RIM case for proof of how ridiculous things could have gotten.
crap freakboy
Sep 12, 02:10 PM
I was expecting more....but I'm a 'glass half empty' sort of fella
bleaknik
Mar 22, 03:26 PM
Better idea: add an ExpressCard slot so I can put eSATA or USB3 on my iMac. Or you know...put USB3 & eSATA on my iMac for me *hint hint Apple*
Why? Thunderbolt is essentially an external PCI-E port.
Why? Thunderbolt is essentially an external PCI-E port.
spicyapple
Sep 19, 04:10 PM
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan.
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
syklee26
Sep 14, 10:15 AM
since Apple lost their claim as the producer of the biggest LCD monitor in the market (30 inch behemoth), maybe Apple will use this event to announce 42 inch Apple Cinema Display.
and what happened to that Apple patent for thousands of small camera embedded on the LCD?
MBP update is very likely, but you won't see Macbook update. processor is limited in quantities and obviously computers with bigger need for faster processor, which is MBP, will be where chips go.
and maybe in this event Apple might present with Adobe for Adobe's upcoming universal softwares.
i don't think Apple will just announce Aperture if they are going to invite guests for a presentation. more than that is coming. maybe Apple projectors. i don't know.
but I know for sure that G5 powerbook is not coming so losers better not cry for that.
and what happened to that Apple patent for thousands of small camera embedded on the LCD?
MBP update is very likely, but you won't see Macbook update. processor is limited in quantities and obviously computers with bigger need for faster processor, which is MBP, will be where chips go.
and maybe in this event Apple might present with Adobe for Adobe's upcoming universal softwares.
i don't think Apple will just announce Aperture if they are going to invite guests for a presentation. more than that is coming. maybe Apple projectors. i don't know.
but I know for sure that G5 powerbook is not coming so losers better not cry for that.
striker33
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Dont understand the hate for the UB looks, mine looks seamless with the sexy AG silver border. I can understand the hate towards the fugly mirror screens though.
milo
Aug 28, 04:03 PM
ah yes. just like they did with the eMac back in the day. that was popular... you know, not having a product to ship for weeks.
Well, assuming they announced and shipped about the same time as the PC companies, there's really not that much to complain about. Don't forget, they did it with the MPB as well.
And if people are really unwilling to wait a couple weeks, nothing is stopping them from buying the yonah models.
Well, assuming they announced and shipped about the same time as the PC companies, there's really not that much to complain about. Don't forget, they did it with the MPB as well.
And if people are really unwilling to wait a couple weeks, nothing is stopping them from buying the yonah models.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
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.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
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.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
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.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
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.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
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.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:21 PM
Honestly, if it made any sense whatsoever then Apple wouldn't have killed it. Do the math. You're living in the past, kid.
As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
Silentwave
Jul 15, 10:12 AM
Have anybody seen a benchmark which compares the core 2 duo with the actuall core duo?
I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.
Thanks
Masoud
Core 2 duo out so far is a desktop chip being compared against other dektop chips. The Core Duo only came as a notebook chip (with one version as a very low power server chip, Sossaman)
I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.
Thanks
Masoud
Core 2 duo out so far is a desktop chip being compared against other dektop chips. The Core Duo only came as a notebook chip (with one version as a very low power server chip, Sossaman)
Slix
Mar 22, 01:30 PM
Glad to see Thunderbolt coming to more products.
