mozumder
Apr 13, 12:45 AM
This really does look like an Aperture for Video!
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
joemama
Sep 20, 09:21 PM
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
pirateRACE
Apr 13, 09:04 AM
As a FC editor I'm excited. I can't wait to see what is in store for the rest of the suite.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 03:07 PM
OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.This is a fairly short thread. All your questions and answers have been discussed in depth above. You should wait in case there is more base RAM to 2GB since that's the new base in MacBook Pros.
Figure Plus $800-$1400 for the 8-core
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.This is a fairly short thread. All your questions and answers have been discussed in depth above. You should wait in case there is more base RAM to 2GB since that's the new base in MacBook Pros.
Figure Plus $800-$1400 for the 8-core
matticus008
Mar 20, 09:01 PM
As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 10:08 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
Not really. With a PC, you could upgrade to a newer version of Windows any time you wanted to. With Android, you have to wait for the mobile carrier to allow it. If they ever do at all.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
Not really. With a PC, you could upgrade to a newer version of Windows any time you wanted to. With Android, you have to wait for the mobile carrier to allow it. If they ever do at all.
pkson
Apr 21, 08:44 PM
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
Shriya Saran hot pics
Sexy Shriya Saran
Shriya Saran Hot Beauty | News
Shriya Saran Hot Photos
shriya saran hot in bikini
.jpg "Hot Shriya Saran Photos")
Hot Shriya Saran Photos
shriya saran hot. shriya saran
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
kdarling
Oct 16, 07:42 AM
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
bryanc
Aug 29, 12:28 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Macsavvytech
May 3, 06:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Better question is,
Miles, why are you so irritated over this? No one really cares anyway.
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Better question is,
Miles, why are you so irritated over this? No one really cares anyway.
ATD
Nov 1, 04:26 PM
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
sinsin07
Apr 9, 01:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Shreya Saran Hot Photos,
shriya saran#39;s hot pictures
Shriya Saran - Shriya Saran
shriya saran hot. shriya saran
lazyrighteye
Sep 20, 08:31 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
If this were the case (which would be cool), why not just cram an iTV into the monitor (which would be cooler)?
"Look ma, no... iTV box thingy (?)!"
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
If this were the case (which would be cool), why not just cram an iTV into the monitor (which would be cooler)?
"Look ma, no... iTV box thingy (?)!"
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 28, 11:17 AM
Q1 is usually the worst time to launch a high-price consumer product. Most people are broke and trying to recover from Christmas. The iPad 2 did very well for a Q1 launch.
I believe Mac Q1 sales were low because everyone is waiting for the refreshed models, due anytime now.
So let's see how Apple does in Q2... :D
I believe Mac Q1 sales were low because everyone is waiting for the refreshed models, due anytime now.
So let's see how Apple does in Q2... :D
risc
Sep 12, 03:44 PM
An interesting device it sounds like the El Gato EyeHome. As long as it can play all normal video/audio formats (whatever you have QuickTime components for) and it has support for El Gato EyeTV I'll happily replace my XP MCE box with one.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:17 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
bobr1952
May 2, 11:40 AM
I turned off automatically open safe files years ago in Tiger and have migrated that setting over since.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
kdarling
Apr 20, 07:37 PM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Good catch to all those who noticed Cook's generic use with "we've got the largest app store".
The manual for (my wife's Android) phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Last time I checked online, Apple's official iPhone user manual was 244 pages long.
Not to mention that there's probably a hundred iPhone help books for people who can't figure it out.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in.
Apple's approval of an app does not guarantee that it doesn't have a Trojan or other malware. It simply means that it passes their app rules and doesn't violate copyrights. Each OS update has included fixes for buffer overruns and other holes which could've allowed anyone full access.
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Hardly. Do you mean the ~100,000 who recently downloaded apps that the someone stuck a root kit in, but which otherwise didn't do anything? And which were deleted within minutes of Google finding out?
Good catch to all those who noticed Cook's generic use with "we've got the largest app store".
The manual for (my wife's Android) phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Last time I checked online, Apple's official iPhone user manual was 244 pages long.
Not to mention that there's probably a hundred iPhone help books for people who can't figure it out.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in.
Apple's approval of an app does not guarantee that it doesn't have a Trojan or other malware. It simply means that it passes their app rules and doesn't violate copyrights. Each OS update has included fixes for buffer overruns and other holes which could've allowed anyone full access.
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Hardly. Do you mean the ~100,000 who recently downloaded apps that the someone stuck a root kit in, but which otherwise didn't do anything? And which were deleted within minutes of Google finding out?
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:01 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:20 PM
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
