JackSYi
Jul 18, 02:14 AM
Too bad Steve couldn't cut a deal from the studios.
JoeG4
Feb 27, 01:39 AM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_zZDRx0MKYqE/TWn-nxGOdrI/AAAAAAAABDY/-YhcSkl57lw/s800/IMG_0591.JPG
I finally got a new chair. My 7 year old awesome chair sits up in my bedroom making an awesome tv chair now. :D
Since the theme lately is "Show how your desk REALLY looks!" this one has a pile of papers on the desk and some random chair assembly stuff laying around as my mother bought a chair too! lol. :D
I finally got a new chair. My 7 year old awesome chair sits up in my bedroom making an awesome tv chair now. :D
Since the theme lately is "Show how your desk REALLY looks!" this one has a pile of papers on the desk and some random chair assembly stuff laying around as my mother bought a chair too! lol. :D
steviem
Mar 18, 07:46 AM
The only way to impose a no fly zone is to have your fighter jets and bombers in the region. Also they have to destroy/disarm Libya's SAMs and possibly destroy/disable Libyan Air Force air fields.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
AidenShaw
Nov 29, 08:37 PM
Living room, car, blah blah blah.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:14 PM
http://twitpic.com/4k71a8
It does look like iMovie Pro.
It does look like iMovie Pro.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 04:42 AM
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
Yeah, but you have to live in the UK. It all works out
Yeah, but you have to live in the UK. It all works out
mum
Aug 7, 06:05 AM
Introducing Vista 2.0
No offense to Apple, but seriously. Is that the wittiest tag-line they can come up with for WWDC 2006? Gernot Poetsch shows that Apple has a lost its creative touch in his photoblog. To this, I just say, eh.
Heh, not only is that tag-line funny, but it's funny 'cause it's true. "Hasta la vista, vista"? That's great too. Paul's obviously irritated by it, and also annoyed by the fact that Apple marketshare is in fact growing, despite his disbelief in its ability ever to do so.
No offense to Apple, but seriously. Is that the wittiest tag-line they can come up with for WWDC 2006? Gernot Poetsch shows that Apple has a lost its creative touch in his photoblog. To this, I just say, eh.
Heh, not only is that tag-line funny, but it's funny 'cause it's true. "Hasta la vista, vista"? That's great too. Paul's obviously irritated by it, and also annoyed by the fact that Apple marketshare is in fact growing, despite his disbelief in its ability ever to do so.
cleanup
Nov 27, 12:29 PM
Just got done framing (: took me a minute too.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
I like this. I really wish it didn't have the logo, though. Much classier as just a photograph, IMHO.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
I like this. I really wish it didn't have the logo, though. Much classier as just a photograph, IMHO.
Philoman
Sep 6, 03:48 PM
The price is slowing going up and up.
PC user who are considering switching is thinking they can buy a whole system for this price.
Apple should offer a $499 Mini for those who are short on money and for those who want to try a Mac for the first time.
PC user who are considering switching is thinking they can buy a whole system for this price.
Apple should offer a $499 Mini for those who are short on money and for those who want to try a Mac for the first time.
apb3
Aug 16, 03:33 PM
FORGET SIRIUS... Its not gonna happen. Why implement somthing that can ony be used in the USA. There are more countries in the world thaty buy ipods. If you want sirius buy a device with sirius, dont put this crap which only you people can use on ipods.
iPods were pretty popular and quite a money maker when only US customers could get them and, later, when only US customers could buy online if memory serves...
iPods were pretty popular and quite a money maker when only US customers could get them and, later, when only US customers could buy online if memory serves...
jettredmont
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
This all started just because I said I hope Final Cut doesn't turn into iMovie. Somehow that turned into iMovie is pro and Final Cut is the Model T of editing.
No, no one said iMovie was Pro. You said you didn't want FCP to take the same "backward step" iMovie did. The hue and cry here is that, where we stand now, iMovie is a far more capable editor than iMovie HD ever was, and has room to grow where iMovieHD did not. It was NOT a step backwards.
Your rebuttal has been that iMovie is not pro, but that's obvious. iMovie HD was not pro (and was significantly less capable than iMovie today is in terms of precision editing, audio work, etc).
For my hobby work (NOT pro), I went from a die-hard Final Cut Pro user (I worked for Apple and got a hell of a discount on FCStudio) to an iMovie user with the past two revs of iMovie. I tried and simply could not use iMovie HD for what I wanted to do. I hit some barriers with iMovie today, but nothing like the crap that iMovie HD and before gave me.
No, no one said iMovie was Pro. You said you didn't want FCP to take the same "backward step" iMovie did. The hue and cry here is that, where we stand now, iMovie is a far more capable editor than iMovie HD ever was, and has room to grow where iMovieHD did not. It was NOT a step backwards.
Your rebuttal has been that iMovie is not pro, but that's obvious. iMovie HD was not pro (and was significantly less capable than iMovie today is in terms of precision editing, audio work, etc).
For my hobby work (NOT pro), I went from a die-hard Final Cut Pro user (I worked for Apple and got a hell of a discount on FCStudio) to an iMovie user with the past two revs of iMovie. I tried and simply could not use iMovie HD for what I wanted to do. I hit some barriers with iMovie today, but nothing like the crap that iMovie HD and before gave me.
Grimace
Aug 16, 07:15 AM
I hope to god they don't use bluetooth. I've had nothing but bad sound quality with those types of headphones.
supermacdesign
Jul 18, 09:50 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:09 PM
They could at least make the app more interesting.
How about a social feature that allows you to see other 'ex-homosexuals' in your area? :D
Have you not been informed of DisgraceBook??
How about a social feature that allows you to see other 'ex-homosexuals' in your area? :D
Have you not been informed of DisgraceBook??
SchneiderMan
Nov 28, 02:14 PM
Well I'm "glad" Mexico comes to me :D
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
G4DP
May 2, 05:12 PM
V-Tech OS anyone?
Shake it till it wobbles children.
Shake it till it wobbles children.
Spanky Deluxe
Nov 27, 01:01 PM
I don't know if this has been posted here yet or not, I did a quick search but turned up nothing.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20061127PD208.html
LCD vendors such as ViewSonic and Apple are set to launch 17-inch widescreen LCD monitors by year-end or the first quarter of according to industry sources.
LCD monitor vendors expect 17-inch widescreen monitors to replace entry-level and middle-range 15-inch and 17-inch LCD monitors in the future. The prices for 17-inch widescreen monitors will not necessary be higher than 17-inch 4:3 models amid more efficient panel cutting by makers, according to the vendors.
Currently, LCD panel makers such as HannStar Display and China-based players have launched 17-inch widescreen panels in the market. A fifth-generation (5G) substrate from HannStar can be cut into fifteen 17-inch widescreen panels or fifteen 15-inch 4:3 conventional-sized panels, the sources said.
According to International Data Corporation (IDC), widescreen LCD monitors will account for 34% of the overall monitor market in the fourth quarter of 2007 with 19-inch widescreen monitors being the largest segment among all widescreen monitors. The proportion of 19-inch and 17-inch widescreen monitors will increase to 15.2% and 11.4%, respectively, by the fourth quarter of next year, the research firm added.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20061127PD208.html
LCD vendors such as ViewSonic and Apple are set to launch 17-inch widescreen LCD monitors by year-end or the first quarter of according to industry sources.
LCD monitor vendors expect 17-inch widescreen monitors to replace entry-level and middle-range 15-inch and 17-inch LCD monitors in the future. The prices for 17-inch widescreen monitors will not necessary be higher than 17-inch 4:3 models amid more efficient panel cutting by makers, according to the vendors.
Currently, LCD panel makers such as HannStar Display and China-based players have launched 17-inch widescreen panels in the market. A fifth-generation (5G) substrate from HannStar can be cut into fifteen 17-inch widescreen panels or fifteen 15-inch 4:3 conventional-sized panels, the sources said.
According to International Data Corporation (IDC), widescreen LCD monitors will account for 34% of the overall monitor market in the fourth quarter of 2007 with 19-inch widescreen monitors being the largest segment among all widescreen monitors. The proportion of 19-inch and 17-inch widescreen monitors will increase to 15.2% and 11.4%, respectively, by the fourth quarter of next year, the research firm added.
charlituna
May 2, 10:33 PM
TO ALL FANBOYS:
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
The best part is that it is an option. You don't have to use this or Launchpad if you don't want to. The whole Finder thing is still there for all the geeks and such
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
The best part is that it is an option. You don't have to use this or Launchpad if you don't want to. The whole Finder thing is still there for all the geeks and such
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 01:14 PM
Pet Store was trademarked but later abandoned:
Pet Store Trademark (http://tess2.uspto.gov/)
These things are commonly done. It may be a new concept to you so perhaps you should research the subject a bit.
Pet Store, the trademark, was not a word mark but a Typed Drawing mark. Hence it's the logo itself that was trademarked, not the phrase.
Try again.
Anyway, didn't Apple again use "We have the largest App Store" in their financials just last week, implying other "App Stores" weren't as large but that the term App Store is quite descriptive and generic ?
Too bad for them they keep diluting their own trademark. Anyway, until the USPTO is done with their opposition phase, it's not decided yet.
Pet Store Trademark (http://tess2.uspto.gov/)
These things are commonly done. It may be a new concept to you so perhaps you should research the subject a bit.
Pet Store, the trademark, was not a word mark but a Typed Drawing mark. Hence it's the logo itself that was trademarked, not the phrase.
Try again.
Anyway, didn't Apple again use "We have the largest App Store" in their financials just last week, implying other "App Stores" weren't as large but that the term App Store is quite descriptive and generic ?
Too bad for them they keep diluting their own trademark. Anyway, until the USPTO is done with their opposition phase, it's not decided yet.
ingenious
Apr 7, 09:10 AM
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it..... :D
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it..... :D
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:38 PM
Why would I look at anything else if it were OK to use Windows?
Well then why the hell are you even chanting from the rooftops about how great Fusion is *supposedly* going to be when you KNOW that the chances of Apple using it are slim to none? It's like a kid nagging his parents for the ice cream that has a fancier logo and packaging when they know their parents aren't going to buy it for them because in reality it's all the same and will most likely taste worse then what they bought previously despite what their ads say.
Well then why the hell are you even chanting from the rooftops about how great Fusion is *supposedly* going to be when you KNOW that the chances of Apple using it are slim to none? It's like a kid nagging his parents for the ice cream that has a fancier logo and packaging when they know their parents aren't going to buy it for them because in reality it's all the same and will most likely taste worse then what they bought previously despite what their ads say.
odyssey924
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
nylonsteel
Apr 2, 09:48 PM
nice - short and sweet commericial - wish my corporate company would use ipad2 and iphone4 - their stupid excuse for years is blackberry is more enterprise secure - yeah so so f---in boring - aapl rules over rimm
No comments:
Post a Comment