faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
And if you beleive that, you are misinformed.
"Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off."
Does not say anything about not tracking when you turn Location Services off, it just says that it will delete the log. This suggests that it did NOT track before when the option was off, otherwise Apple would also address that.
Show me where any article explicitly says that they still track when it is disabled.
"Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off."
Does not say anything about not tracking when you turn Location Services off, it just says that it will delete the log. This suggests that it did NOT track before when the option was off, otherwise Apple would also address that.
Show me where any article explicitly says that they still track when it is disabled.
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 04:08 PM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...Funny.
samcraig
Apr 27, 10:28 AM
Don't you just love it? Apple identifies an potential issue, and does something to remedy it, and they get yelled at for doing so. If they do nothing, they get yelled at for doing nothing.
Catch 22.
Apple identified it? No. Check your history. It was brought TO Apple's attention over a year ago.
It was again brought TO Apple's attention via various reports and articles.
THEN Apple looked into the matter.
I commend Apple for taking action (now).
But let's not rewrite history, shall we?
Catch 22.
Apple identified it? No. Check your history. It was brought TO Apple's attention over a year ago.
It was again brought TO Apple's attention via various reports and articles.
THEN Apple looked into the matter.
I commend Apple for taking action (now).
But let's not rewrite history, shall we?
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:59 AM
This was my point. If you don't agree, no need to get your panties in a bunch, just don't comment. You gots some demons in you chil'...
I find your statement back to him a bit hypocritical and quite judgmental. Why are his panties in a twist but not yours?
Your initial reply to him was harsh to begin with and he replied logically. Agree to disagree. Leave it at that.
I find your statement back to him a bit hypocritical and quite judgmental. Why are his panties in a twist but not yours?
Your initial reply to him was harsh to begin with and he replied logically. Agree to disagree. Leave it at that.
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:42 AM
Poor Paranoid Apple :)
tumblebird
Nov 28, 11:30 PM
That Doug Morris is a slimeball. Who's to say I even own any Universal music. I listen to Indie, primarily. I buy all my music, most of it on CD which I digitize, or via the iTunes Music Store. Who is Universal to demand my dollar? Or three for that matter, one for each iPod I have purchased. There are a lot of labels out there. They can't all get a portion. Apple owes them NOTHING. Did they get music from Sony for the Walkman? How many of us listened to mix tapes from friends on those? I know that most of my tapes were mixes from records and CDs. Universal is off base and greedy. Don't let this happen, Mr. Steve Jobs! You're in the right.
arkitect
Mar 1, 04:35 PM
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
I was being kind… ;)
(Mind you, those Renaissance popes — such paragons of Catholic virtue with their prostitutes and illegitimate children…)
But I am sure our resident hair shirt will be around shortly to put us right about Sixtus IV et al.
;)
I was being kind… ;)
(Mind you, those Renaissance popes — such paragons of Catholic virtue with their prostitutes and illegitimate children…)
But I am sure our resident hair shirt will be around shortly to put us right about Sixtus IV et al.
;)
vincenz
Mar 26, 07:34 AM
Summer can't come soon enough!
skunk
Feb 28, 06:16 PM
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.Sure, but if they are going to air their opinions, they should also be able to back their opinions up with something better than hearsay.
gibbz
Apr 27, 08:20 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
matznentosh
Jul 27, 02:54 PM
Don't ask! Hahahaha, the G5's run hot, I'd hate to know how much they're sucking but with a 600W power supply...it's a lot;)
Reminds me of the time I borrowed my brother's very old Volkswagon Beetle, the air cooled kind. I noticed there was no temperature gage and asked him how hot it gets - he laughed and said "you don't want to know... think cherry red hot metal".
Reminds me of the time I borrowed my brother's very old Volkswagon Beetle, the air cooled kind. I noticed there was no temperature gage and asked him how hot it gets - he laughed and said "you don't want to know... think cherry red hot metal".
lorductape
Nov 28, 06:39 PM
I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 12:05 AM
I hate how some people think the ~800 standard cars are going to look like GT4 cars.
They won't just look like it, they ARE GT4 cars. Take note that NONE of the cars that are playable at these events or seen in almost all screen shots are Standard� cars. I'm not "hating" on the game. I just question their decisions. As I said in my previous posts, I'm a very LONG time fan of the GT series. But, I'm getting tired of the repeated cycle I continuously go through with them lately. Super hype for the games before they come out, and then, regardless of exponentially greater feature list, I'm let down by the actual driving.
Again, I'm glad this game looks spectacular, because it really does. Even though the screen shots that we're seeing are from Photo Mode, the ones that have come out at GC10 are amazing. It is also practically bewildering how the game now has a feature list that is so huge and loaded with features, if you didn't hear it from Polyphony themselves, you might not believe it. But, like I said, the more stuff that keeps getting added to the game, and more minutiae they detail in the Premium� cars, the more my expectations of the actual driving in the game rises.
They won't just look like it, they ARE GT4 cars. Take note that NONE of the cars that are playable at these events or seen in almost all screen shots are Standard� cars. I'm not "hating" on the game. I just question their decisions. As I said in my previous posts, I'm a very LONG time fan of the GT series. But, I'm getting tired of the repeated cycle I continuously go through with them lately. Super hype for the games before they come out, and then, regardless of exponentially greater feature list, I'm let down by the actual driving.
Again, I'm glad this game looks spectacular, because it really does. Even though the screen shots that we're seeing are from Photo Mode, the ones that have come out at GC10 are amazing. It is also practically bewildering how the game now has a feature list that is so huge and loaded with features, if you didn't hear it from Polyphony themselves, you might not believe it. But, like I said, the more stuff that keeps getting added to the game, and more minutiae they detail in the Premium� cars, the more my expectations of the actual driving in the game rises.
Eidorian
Aug 27, 07:57 AM
Conroe power consumption (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html)
I also remember another link where it shows the CPU temperature at 100% load being 50� C. (More then likely with a stock heat sink, fan, and in a BTX case.)
I remember my iMac G5 Rev. B hitting 75� C at 100% load. So there's some room for more heat. I don't know if it'll be as quiet though compared to Yonah.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=219310&highlight=970fx+tdp+conroe
I also remember another link where it shows the CPU temperature at 100% load being 50� C. (More then likely with a stock heat sink, fan, and in a BTX case.)
I remember my iMac G5 Rev. B hitting 75� C at 100% load. So there's some room for more heat. I don't know if it'll be as quiet though compared to Yonah.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=219310&highlight=970fx+tdp+conroe
THX1139
Apr 10, 08:28 PM
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
So, in other words... you are excited that Apple might be dumbing down FCS for you? Well, good for you! Maybe you will be understand how to use it now to edit weekend skate videos of you and your buddies. Have fun with that.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
So, in other words... you are excited that Apple might be dumbing down FCS for you? Well, good for you! Maybe you will be understand how to use it now to edit weekend skate videos of you and your buddies. Have fun with that.
reden
Apr 6, 03:14 PM
You list ONE issue with the iPad, that it looks too much like the iPhone, and then go on to a laundry list of issues on the Xoom that culminates in a tech support call and THAT is your preferred device?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
This guy, lol. I removed my comment because I'd waste my time with you. :):):)
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
This guy, lol. I removed my comment because I'd waste my time with you. :):):)
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
rockthecasbah
Nov 28, 06:37 PM
There's a reason and i pay for my music and don't just steal off of P2P sites!!! I doubt this would ever happen since the iTunes Music Store / Apple is so powerful that having Universal not be hosted would hurt them more than Apple. Record labels are just sickening. Someone who buys an iPod isn't even necessarily going to buy music in general (or at least from Universal) anyway, so their idea that they are entitled to a cut of the profits is just unfounded.
addicted44
Mar 26, 01:16 AM
I don't know that #2 matters that much. A vast majority of the people buying the OS couldn't care less about the server tools. In fact of all the Mac users I know personally, I'd be the only one that would care about their inclusion.
Also, we don't know that the price point will be $129.00 yet. The price point is something I am VERY interested in seeing though. Will it be that high? Or will it be as cheap as Snow Leopard? Or somewhere in the middle? I'm personally guessing it'll be the latter. The AppStore is changing the general population's idea of what software should cost (which is, in my opinion, one of the best things about it). So we'll see.
Right on both counts. Still, I think its amazing that we might be getting a server class OS for what will most likely be less than $129.
Also, we don't know that the price point will be $129.00 yet. The price point is something I am VERY interested in seeing though. Will it be that high? Or will it be as cheap as Snow Leopard? Or somewhere in the middle? I'm personally guessing it'll be the latter. The AppStore is changing the general population's idea of what software should cost (which is, in my opinion, one of the best things about it). So we'll see.
Right on both counts. Still, I think its amazing that we might be getting a server class OS for what will most likely be less than $129.
~Shard~
Aug 25, 04:29 PM
the vocal minority are always the ones who have problems :rolleyes:
So in other words, the squeaky wheel gets the grease? ;)
So in other words, the squeaky wheel gets the grease? ;)
shawnce
Aug 17, 11:05 AM
When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience. You should really do deeper analysis/research before making generally incorrect statements like the above.
DiamondGCoupe
Apr 11, 11:58 AM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
BLUELION
Apr 6, 01:25 PM
Score, iPad2=1, Xoom=0.
but really, if we adjust for # of sales the score is more like:
ipad2=20, Xoom=1
but really, if we adjust for # of sales the score is more like:
ipad2=20, Xoom=1
FlameofAnor
Mar 31, 05:23 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)