whooleytoo
Sep 7, 10:38 AM
It'll be interesting to see what they mean by "New Releases". Does this mean digital movie downloads are released at the same time as the DVD release, or before/after?
Obviously, the most likely answer is the at the same time as the DVD release, but I really wish the studios would think 'outside the box'. Once setup, digital movie downloads could become an enormously profitable market:
- Impulse buying: want to watch a movie? Just one click in iTMS.
- Very low distribution costs.
- Easy to launch globally: no need for marketing campaigns in different regions, just one global marketing campaign online - cheaper.
- It's the best (arguably, the only) option that stands a chance in the fight against piracy.
In fact, it could potentially be a more profitable market than the cinema, so why relegate the download market to trying to squeeze a few last dollars out of 6 month old movies, why not consider releasing the digital download around the same time as the cinema release, if not even before?
For some reason, every time I think of MPAA (or RIAA, or any of the non-US equivalents) executives, I imagine someone huddled underneath their desks with their eyes closed and ears covered, mumbling a prayer that the big, bad internet will go away and make their lives a lot easier and cushier again. These people are so resistant to change they make the Catholic "Yup, world's still flat" Church seem avant garde.
Obviously, the most likely answer is the at the same time as the DVD release, but I really wish the studios would think 'outside the box'. Once setup, digital movie downloads could become an enormously profitable market:
- Impulse buying: want to watch a movie? Just one click in iTMS.
- Very low distribution costs.
- Easy to launch globally: no need for marketing campaigns in different regions, just one global marketing campaign online - cheaper.
- It's the best (arguably, the only) option that stands a chance in the fight against piracy.
In fact, it could potentially be a more profitable market than the cinema, so why relegate the download market to trying to squeeze a few last dollars out of 6 month old movies, why not consider releasing the digital download around the same time as the cinema release, if not even before?
For some reason, every time I think of MPAA (or RIAA, or any of the non-US equivalents) executives, I imagine someone huddled underneath their desks with their eyes closed and ears covered, mumbling a prayer that the big, bad internet will go away and make their lives a lot easier and cushier again. These people are so resistant to change they make the Catholic "Yup, world's still flat" Church seem avant garde.
nosen
Sep 6, 06:14 PM
But hopefully these are a better resolution than the current TV show on Itunes. It should be at least DVD quality, If not these price model will bomb IMHO.
agreed, although I don't think I'd ever pay more than $9.99... I'd rather just buy the DVD.
agreed, although I don't think I'd ever pay more than $9.99... I'd rather just buy the DVD.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 08:23 AM
In general, "Applications" are what Apple run on their Mac OS platform "Apps" are what they run on their iOS platform, a cut down version of Mac OS X with a cut down but related and familiar name.
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
Squire
Jul 18, 02:55 AM
Didn't read the article yet, but why on earth would Apple announce an iTunes/Movie rental service at the WWDC? With Leopard and the probability of new hardware announcements, it looks like Jobs is already going to be plenty busy giving that slide clicker of his a workout. So unless there is some sort of special tie-in with yet to be disclosed Leopard whiz bang technologies and the Video service, why WWDC?
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
I see your point, but if the timing is right, why not?
As others have noted, a rental service for movies is not such a bad idea. For the few movies you'd watch multiple times, buying the DVD-- with all the extras-- is a better option. I can't get too excited about it, though, because it will obviously be a US-only service.
-Squire
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
I see your point, but if the timing is right, why not?
As others have noted, a rental service for movies is not such a bad idea. For the few movies you'd watch multiple times, buying the DVD-- with all the extras-- is a better option. I can't get too excited about it, though, because it will obviously be a US-only service.
-Squire
Mexbearpig
Nov 23, 03:03 PM
Bought a $15 iTunes gift card for my cousins birthday today.
http://www.giftcardsonlinecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Silhouette-15-iTunes-Gift-Card.jpg
http://www.giftcardsonlinecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Silhouette-15-iTunes-Gift-Card.jpg
tny
Jul 18, 07:20 AM
This does play into the news published about the industry allowing people to burn movies to DVDs but can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
MacMan86
Apr 23, 12:03 PM
It's fun reading about people who try to justify privacy invasion because Apple does it but would be raising a ruckus if it was Microsoft or anyone else. The double standard and blind following is funny.
If that is your idea of fun, you really need to get out more.
See my post above for innocuous reasoning behind all of this. It's nothing like as sinister as you would like to believe. Data is not being sent back to Apple.
If that is your idea of fun, you really need to get out more.
See my post above for innocuous reasoning behind all of this. It's nothing like as sinister as you would like to believe. Data is not being sent back to Apple.
NATO
Aug 16, 07:35 AM
If they use WiFi with the new iPods, they'll need a chunky battery. When I still used a PDA, the battery life nose dived when you turned on the WiFi. . .
arn
Jan 11, 08:01 PM
Maybe it would be called the AirMac. That would be an interesting name instead of the MacBook Air.
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
DJMastaWes
Aug 16, 11:10 AM
an 80GB iPod/Phone would be sweet, all in one!
suzerain
Jul 21, 02:22 AM
Then you can't know that many people, I think you're forgetting there are still people outside of the US, and over here there still is a huge unexplored market for movie rentals. There are no companies that provide services like Netflix, and stores rule the market. If Apple uses the iTunes name for Movie Rentals, it will be a succes in Europe, either way.
Does Apple even offer TV downloads in Europe yet?
Does Apple even offer TV downloads in Europe yet?
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
Robin Chung
Mar 25, 04:29 PM
That's amazing! The hardware is moving so fast now, the gains are incredible. Hopefully many more ios developers will take some time to create amazing features like these.
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
zep1977
Apr 21, 12:31 PM
al franken?
I thought it was just us "tinfoil hats" as was said yesterday by some in these forums, who would be upset about this?
Guess not. :rolleyes:
I thought it was just us "tinfoil hats" as was said yesterday by some in these forums, who would be upset about this?
Guess not. :rolleyes:
Chundles
Jul 18, 03:16 AM
List of things I don't want to hear one word about at the WWDC:
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
speedythecat
Oct 6, 01:23 PM
Thanks. That looks like a great case there too!
syklee26
Sep 7, 10:33 AM
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
technically they are NOT the same system because previously 1.66 Duo had superdrive but the new system has combo drive in it. and i think for 1.66 system Hard drive shrunk to 60gb.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
technically they are NOT the same system because previously 1.66 Duo had superdrive but the new system has combo drive in it. and i think for 1.66 system Hard drive shrunk to 60gb.
wizard
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I wonder if this may imply the coming of that unicorn rider we all know and love, the 'headless mac" (aka xMac).
Removable drives, no screen, more powerful than an iMac, 1499.99.
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.
I wonder if this may imply the coming of that unicorn rider we all know and love, the 'headless mac" (aka xMac).
Removable drives, no screen, more powerful than an iMac, 1499.99.
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.
PODshady
Oct 23, 08:27 PM
I believe that there is a very good chance that the entire Intel line of Macs will get upgraded to 64-bit processors since Leopard has extended 64-bit support beyond the UNIX level
Ugg
Mar 31, 02:44 PM
The American obsession with WWII simply isn't healthy.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:11 PM
I'm scared as to the 'how much' after all of this. I only started using Premiere because it was 64bit (and I got a cheap upgrade to Master Collection). I really miss using FCP. (Used it back in the 1.0 days)
PBF
Apr 3, 02:31 AM
Stickies contents are now scrollable. I think this was the case in DP1 as well.
BLUELION
Apr 3, 01:46 PM
Apple is Apple and the king of the hill with respect to the tablet sector. Android is attempting to catch up, and therefore not on top.
The reason this ad works so well is because it is not in your face, trying to give you a spec list of what it can do. People already know what is under the hood and what its hardware can do, the point of the ad is to entice, to get those who are on other platforms to come on over.
This ad is about subtle confidence and that is why it is a home-run. Android, well they can keep trying with their used car salesman approach.
:apple:
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
The reason this ad works so well is because it is not in your face, trying to give you a spec list of what it can do. People already know what is under the hood and what its hardware can do, the point of the ad is to entice, to get those who are on other platforms to come on over.
This ad is about subtle confidence and that is why it is a home-run. Android, well they can keep trying with their used car salesman approach.
:apple:
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
No comments:
Post a Comment