boxandrew
Sep 5, 12:04 PM
iLounge has received the same invitation (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-to-hold-showtime-event-on-september-12th/)
Looks like it's now for definite going to happen. Only one week to wait...
Looks like it's now for definite going to happen. Only one week to wait...
KingYaba
Aug 23, 10:28 PM
Apple got lucky. Good to hear no real damage was done.
Casshan
Sep 19, 03:35 PM
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?
They are Dolby Surround, not Dolby Digital. Dolby Surround is just matrixed stereo audio.
They are Dolby Surround, not Dolby Digital. Dolby Surround is just matrixed stereo audio.
Yebot
Aug 31, 12:14 PM
9/12
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 30, 11:48 AM
Microsoft is suing homebuilders for offering "Windows" in their homes. Instead, they need to refer to them as "transparent viewing portals".
"Portals"??? Did you say "Portals"? you can't say that! It could be trademarked too!
How about "Shoe Store"? is that a trademark too? If not, I should patent it and sue all of them.
Regarding the term "Windows", I have no idea how M$ got away with suing "Lindows". their claim was that phonetically there was a similarity that could confuse the public.
Repeat after me: "Lindows, Windows". Did you get confused? I don't think so.
Repeat after me: "AppStore, App Store". Did you get confused? What? Where? Sounds the same?
Based on their "Lindows" precedent, M$ has no ground to refute the lawsuit.
"Portals"??? Did you say "Portals"? you can't say that! It could be trademarked too!
How about "Shoe Store"? is that a trademark too? If not, I should patent it and sue all of them.
Regarding the term "Windows", I have no idea how M$ got away with suing "Lindows". their claim was that phonetically there was a similarity that could confuse the public.
Repeat after me: "Lindows, Windows". Did you get confused? I don't think so.
Repeat after me: "AppStore, App Store". Did you get confused? What? Where? Sounds the same?
Based on their "Lindows" precedent, M$ has no ground to refute the lawsuit.
KingCrimson
Apr 29, 11:49 AM
Haha, you're funny. I'm no fan of the Xbox, but you've got to be kidding if you think Nintendo is ever really going to kill Sony/MS. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles, but most main virtually unused, cos the Wii is woefully under-powered, propped up by the same old kiddy franchises and once you get past the new gimmicks gets boring fast.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
Nothing beats the XBox-Live ecosystem from what I read. Kudos for MSFT investing in it for a decade until it became profitable.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
Nothing beats the XBox-Live ecosystem from what I read. Kudos for MSFT investing in it for a decade until it became profitable.
simonthewolf
Aug 24, 09:59 AM
So what happens if Uncle Bill buys Creative? :eek:
ghostlines
Apr 19, 12:16 PM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
They could supply some botched batches of screens and such. Apple has to watch out. They're doing great, no need to b**** about such little things. Stuff looks similar if they're in the same market. As long as it's not 99% identical they should just carry on making money:cool:
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
They could supply some botched batches of screens and such. Apple has to watch out. They're doing great, no need to b**** about such little things. Stuff looks similar if they're in the same market. As long as it's not 99% identical they should just carry on making money:cool:
ChrisTX
Apr 25, 06:44 PM
Just purchased the latest refresh of the MacBook Pro to replace a a 2006 model, and couldn't be happier with my purchase. I had a hunch the next refresh would be a case redesign, still no regrets.
rlmccormick
Apr 25, 02:48 PM
Just because the design might be happening at Quanta (still a rumor) doesn't mean Apple is not doing the designing (if it wasn't their designs, why hasn't anyone else been able to make a unibody laptop yet?).
I think the confusion is that most of us (myself included) believe that Apple is designing their hardware in California. Because of that it was a little bit of a shocker to hear that someone in Asia could be designing a case for their new laptops.
I think the confusion is that most of us (myself included) believe that Apple is designing their hardware in California. Because of that it was a little bit of a shocker to hear that someone in Asia could be designing a case for their new laptops.
markcres
Apr 20, 11:56 AM
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Steve Jobs has become that which he once reviled.
Apple is the new fascism....
Steve Jobs has become that which he once reviled.
Apple is the new fascism....
Warbrain
Sep 26, 08:27 AM
i`d once bought an unlocked T-Mobile Sony T610 in India and it worked absolutely fine with all the GSM providers I tried. So in case even if this iPhone is exclusive to Cingular we`d still be able to get it to work here(fingers crossed).
I'm willing to bet that Apple won't use the same techniques as other cell phone manufacturers use to lock their devices as the OS will be developed by Apple. It'll be much like the Sidekick, which is locked to T-Mobile in such a manner that it's a pain in the ass to unlock it and even then a lot of the features are crippled since they won't work on any other network.
I'm willing to bet that Apple won't use the same techniques as other cell phone manufacturers use to lock their devices as the OS will be developed by Apple. It'll be much like the Sidekick, which is locked to T-Mobile in such a manner that it's a pain in the ass to unlock it and even then a lot of the features are crippled since they won't work on any other network.
roland.g
Mar 30, 11:33 AM
They hire lawyers. They hire linguists. They hire PR agents. They hire advertising companies. They hire survey companies. All that money and they still don't know that they should invest in doing some real research and development, and innovation instead. Brings me back to that old, tried but true, Apple commercial from the "Get a Mac" campaign...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE
I think it is all those commercials that has made M$ say "Let's dump as much $$ at making whatever we can difficult for Steve & Co."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE
I think it is all those commercials that has made M$ say "Let's dump as much $$ at making whatever we can difficult for Steve & Co."
milo
Sep 5, 01:05 PM
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
I'm sure they do. But I'm totally fine with the TV I have, I'm not the tiniest bit interested in upgrading, especially considering what the new stuff costs.
And I'd still have a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I'd have to pull up a chair or strain my eyes from my sofa on the other side of the room. I've tried it, and I don't really like it, at least not for any uses other than just watching TV.
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Sounds like the predictions of mp3 player success for apple. They already have a precedent for entering a marketplace that isn't going anywhere and pretty much single handedly getting it to take off.
I'm sure they do. But I'm totally fine with the TV I have, I'm not the tiniest bit interested in upgrading, especially considering what the new stuff costs.
And I'd still have a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I'd have to pull up a chair or strain my eyes from my sofa on the other side of the room. I've tried it, and I don't really like it, at least not for any uses other than just watching TV.
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Sounds like the predictions of mp3 player success for apple. They already have a precedent for entering a marketplace that isn't going anywhere and pretty much single handedly getting it to take off.
.jpg "Charles Chaplin and Max Linder")
BlindMellon
Apr 22, 06:32 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
this service is for apple fans who will swallow anything apple sells and ask for more, even as they pay extra data charges to listen to music they already own.
this service is for apple fans who will swallow anything apple sells and ask for more, even as they pay extra data charges to listen to music they already own.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 28, 04:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
$100B past Microsoft in 1 year is tremendous. Go AAPL!
when something jumps that quickly it tells you that value should be questions.
$100B past Microsoft in 1 year is tremendous. Go AAPL!
when something jumps that quickly it tells you that value should be questions.
xxxamazexxx
Mar 29, 01:02 PM
Looking at the figures right now anyone can easily see that iOS is not the dominating platform. Not even the second most popular (which is Symbian), but does anyone really care ? Same case with the Macs and Mac OS X.
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs creates such reliable, handsome products.
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs creates such reliable, handsome products.
Silentwave
Sep 16, 01:45 PM
I don't like the sound of "off the shelf" parts. That sounds like Apple is going to rebrand an existing phone or place the guts of another company's phone in their casing.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
juicedropsdeuce
Apr 25, 01:29 PM
...and you think most people who buy a MBP won't swap out the drive for a 7200RPM drive or an SSD and max out their memory?
Intelligent...no genius level thinking!
Great. Since Apple puts that crap hard drive in there, instead of simply using the computer someone has to go through all that trouble to get what they paid for (i7 processor)? Are you for real? That sounds great. I'm sure all those random people who buy from the Apple Store also buy the Apple torx screwdriver kit and get to work when they get home. :rolleyes:
Intelligent...no genius level thinking!
Great. Since Apple puts that crap hard drive in there, instead of simply using the computer someone has to go through all that trouble to get what they paid for (i7 processor)? Are you for real? That sounds great. I'm sure all those random people who buy from the Apple Store also buy the Apple torx screwdriver kit and get to work when they get home. :rolleyes:
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 08:34 AM
Anyone know when we might see an update to the MacBook (not MBP)???
Not on the 24th. Later in the fall maybe?
Not on the 24th. Later in the fall maybe?
dizastor
Sep 19, 01:31 PM
imagine how good it would be doing if they had more than disney on board.
DagazaGZ
Apr 30, 02:02 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
You bring a good point... I thought there were thunderbolt drives...
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
You bring a good point... I thought there were thunderbolt drives...
OdduWon
Sep 26, 11:44 AM
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
well, also it makes perfect sense since cingular is the only provider that i know of that has itunes capable phones. really no suprise here. this is why when my dog ate my ericson t637 i just got a $50 referb and held off on buying a new phone. telepod is going to be great!
well, also it makes perfect sense since cingular is the only provider that i know of that has itunes capable phones. really no suprise here. this is why when my dog ate my ericson t637 i just got a $50 referb and held off on buying a new phone. telepod is going to be great!