Slashdot Mirror

Not anymore, regarding Rosetta. According to an OSx86 Project article and an Apple Insider article, Rosetta now has full G4 support (including Altivec). From the first article:

First, the Rosetta emulation platform in 10.4.3 build 8F1111A has been upgraded to feature full G4 support, including Altivec. This not only adds a new layer of compatibility to Rosetta, but also improved speed for Altivec-equipped applications.

I don't know if Rosetta and a dual-core Yonah will run G4-optimized software fast enough, but it will run.

ahh yes, but its just payback for Tim Schaaff

3 or 4? Try 52. BMW 5 and 7 series currently contain 52 freescale chips. See http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1404

the golden ratio stuff is interesting, but don't think the Nano isn't gonna sell well because of a different ratio... they're actually shipping 100,000 of these each day

see this: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1422/

• sell downloadable music online using DRM
• not be Apple and use iTunes
• have the downloadable music play on iPods

Complete resolution independence is coming to Leopard. The fundamentals are already beginning to be implemented in Tiger. And when OS X goes resolution independent, it'll be thorough, elegant, and beautiful, not half-assed like in Windows.

You should be happy, instead of doing homework, I looked it up for you :).

Even a year ago Apple was slightly profitable with the music store. I didn't listen to the conference call, but it was widely reported and if you can find the call online, then you can listen for yourself.

Andrew

Could? The dual-core Yonah's had better deliver performance better than any of Apple's current laptop lineup. One of the main reasons for the switch to Intel is the sad state of Motorola and IBM's low-power chips.

Other places are indicating that Apple will release the Powerbooks first because the higher performance CPUs are what Intel has available now, with the lower performance ones coming in the Spring.

Not news. Merely rumor.

- Jasen.

Interesting theory, but probably dead wrong.

First, Apple was sued by Eminem for an ad that used one of his songs without permission. Then in May of this year, they settled for an undisclosed sum. Now, Apple's latest Eminem ad has been found to be strikingly similar to an ad that Lugz did for its shoes, resulting in a cease-and-desist order on Friday.

If you want to catch the latest products about to be released today, check out the rumor sites at 10am PDT, I'm sure one of them will be following it. They currently think the Video iPod will debut today.

thinksecret
appleinsider

Or just checkout apple's website later today!

I'm not sure the exact date of the quote, but you can read references of it
here and here (4th P) for starters.

The reasoning for his not liking flash players? Apple didn't yet have one ;)

He didn't say those exact words but close to it. He's quoted at Apple Insider on it.

This is one of those times I wish I had mod points.

I'd also add that having a monopoly is not inherently illegal, but using your monopoly in one market to achieve a monopoly in another is. This strikes me as an interesting point today considering the buzz currently running around the "video iPod" and Apple selling downloadable movies. If Apple made this part of the iTunes Music Store, it might lead to monopoly issues. On the other hand, if Apple were to add this to, say, iMovie (and the Windows users had to wait a bit for iMovie for Windows) there would be less of a problem.

The record industry is too anachronistic to have the foresight to create this solution themselves and are still obsessed with selling a solid medium (LPs, tapes, CDs), while treating its customers as criminals and artists as expendable commodities that can ignore paying royalties if they can help it

A brief look at the practices of the record industry reveals that they are the dishonest lot:

Apple earns less than a nickel per iTunes track

States settle CD price-fixing case

RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement

A music industry case study Shows how little the artist makes thanks to middle men like the record industry

Wal-Mart Wants $10 CDsRemember when CDs first came out and people said it was too expensive and the record industry promised that it would go below $10 eventually. Never happened

How Apple saved the music biz

FTC: Labels charged with price-fixing - again

Music Firms to Look Harder For Artists Owed Royalties Spitzer announced a settlement in which the nation's five largest recording companies promised to do a better job of tracking down and paying $50 million in unclaimed royalties to thousands of performers.

Finally, last night 2005-Sep-29 on Nightly Business Review (NBR) was a four part series on the music industry. It shows how iTMS allowed one relatively unknown electronica artist sell directly to her consumers with the iTMS . Her music was featured on NPR and then people all over the world wanted to download and listen to her music. Stores like iTMS are the great equalizer from years of abuse from the greedy record labels. "The Business of Music,"-Part 4: The Down Low On Download Distribution

Or "Numbers?"

Apparently Apple have trademarked 'Numbers' recently, so I'd bet on that.

To turn things around... Do you think all other consumer electronics companies are perfect and have never had class-action action suits filed against them?

One reason why chips are $600 is that the manufacturing facilities to make them cost somewhere around 3 billion dollars to build.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=56358

Check out this (abysmal) photo for more stopwatch fun. http://www.appleinsider.com/image.php?i=ipodnano23 &id=1266

I hope the new functionality of the nano will be availabe to the older iPods in the form of a firmware update soon!

I'm really just guessing on this, but when Apple puts out an Intel-based mini, I don't think it'll be using current chips. I think it'll be using one of the newer, recently-announced 64-bit chips. The timeframes for the release of these chips and Apple's switch to intel line up perfectly, and I don't think it's coincidence.

Since these are lower-power chips, I don't think they'll have trouble. Besides, Intel ( and others ) can and do squeeze Pentium M chips into all sorts of small enclosures, it's just that they can't do it cheaply and the PC crowd is less interested in cute designs...

Hey, ain't you a tad off-topic ? At least say you don't care about server performance, since clearly you're only interested in single-user desktop... fork() latencies won't affect you! ( See, look, I'm on-topic! Easy, huh? )

And clips from something claiming to be the E790 user manual showing Ipod operation:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1242

Apple has to support current computers with their Applecare program. Applesinsider has discussed that these go into 2008. So really, this is probably nothing more than the winding down period.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1248

All the rumors I have heard seem to suggest that the high-end desktop hardware (PowerMac, XServe, high-end iMac configs) will be the last to switch to Intel.

If Apple uses Pentium M and its successors to solve its laptop/Mac Mini problem, it can probably afford to wait on the high-end hardware. IBM has already announced dual-core G5s which should be good for another PowerMac revision or two.

By that time, if there is a mythical Intel 64-bit magic chip, it will be on or close to market.

Lets see - anonymous developer says "test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components", then your answer to the evidence of the chip on the board is..?

Actually, there were rumors, though not specific and not recently. This was posted on March 15.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=951

Actually, Wal-Mart has made a deal directly with Apple to carry the iPod, so HP's departure makes no difference there. Ditto RadioShack, if AppleInsider can be believed. That eliminates the two most significant retailers that carried HP but not Apple. The only big holdouts now are the office-supply chains, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see Staples or Office Depot make a deal with Apple next.

I'm sure at least part of it was distribution. HP had distribution channels that Apple didn't. For example, the iPods selling in RadioShack were the HP models. It worked for both of them, Apple got iPods in places they normally couldn't, and HP got to sell iPods to retailers without directly competing with Apple.

Recently however RadioShack and Apple started working together. If Apple is undercutting HPs distribution by going straight to the retailers why should HP stay in this particular game.

Well I think the iTunes phone is a pretty sure bet. Between these shots of the phone: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000887049175/

And the fact that support for them is already in iTunes (yeah, I know it says iPod phone, but that's not the same as a "hybrid iPod/cell phone"):
http://appleinsider.com/image.php?i=itunesiphonepr efs&id=1158

There's no doubt that it's coming. But it won't be a hybrid iPod/cell phone.

This would allow Apple to circumvent the cellular carriers who have so far balked at carrying the iTunes-enabled mobile phone

Odd statement, considering that phones which interoperate with iTunes have already been spotted in the wild.

Apple Computer will pants them before they develop the first design concept. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1164 My money is on apple to develop the best online movie experience. I wonder if this is going to cause some friction between Apple and Intel?

It's also on AppleInsider.

• Eject mobile phone
• iPod Phone Prefs
• iPodPhoneiTunes Setup
• PhoneUpdating contacts
• iTunes will automatically fill your mobile phone with a random selection of songs from your library. You may fill your mobile phone with a different selection of songs by pressing Autofill in the mobile phone playlist

So IE7's RSS support looks virtually identical to Safari's RSS support

Why am I not surprised?

The story says they are suing APple for iTunes, not ITMS.

If the interface layout was part of the original '96 filling, then it's very clear that the patent was infringed upon. Just because the one being sued here isn't MS doesn't mean it's a farce or a scam to make quick money.

I'm generally not one to jump to conclusions (especially since I've never used iTunes and have no idea what its UI looks like), but if this is at all accurate, it's pretty damning evidence of Apple ripping off the patent-holder's interface design...

Liberace has a bowtie in both pictures. That's enough to convince me!

Then again I also voted to acquit Michael Jackson...

The iTunes interface seems to be almost a ditto copy of their interface, and they have alleged that persons who were at the time employed by or later became employed by Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software.

"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player"

Funny, WMP and Musicmatch allow this functionality, among others. I wonder why they weren't sued....

Smells fishy to me. Targetting the big kahuna rather than the concept.... I don't like it one bit. Yet another lawsuit that reeks of collusion.

I spoke of tit-for-tat earlier in the day. Here is another fine example of tit-for-tat.

actually, there is talk of open sourcing webobjects.

As of now WebObjects developer is free. Your can develop with only a copy of Apples free dev tools. Now Deploying requires a License of 10.4 Server which will put you back $499 ($299 if your educational). This dev kit you talk about was the Tiger quick start kit, to allow developers to get tiger early. Apple's Dev Tool have been free from the start. Stop spreading FUD.

In other new the rumblings around WWDC was that Apple is planning on open sourcing WebObjects, which would then make it free. More on that here.

According to an article at AppleInsider.com: "Employees working the show floor of the Apple's developers conference last week could be overheard discussing the prospect of open-sourcing the company's WebObjects environment used for rapidly building and deploying web-based applications." Perhaps releasing the dev kit for free is just the first step to going open source with it.

Still, Mac users aren't adopting iWork in large numbers; partly because it lacks components like a spreadsheet application, but more so because Microsoft Office has established itself as an industry standard for home and office productivity.

And remember, Pages doesn't look jack like MS Word. Which is what people want:

According to sources close to Apple's retail operations, the average Apple store only sells a handful of iWork copies each week, if that. Meanwhile, contacts at larger mail-order catalogs have used words such as "awful" and "horrible" to describe sales of the software suite. Instead, sources say the first question to roll off the tongue of most prospective Mac buyers is: "Will Microsoft Office run on my new Mac?"

Which was my point, thank you very much. The best chance for Apple to get out of the MS Office trap is OpenOffice (NeoOffice/J on the Mac). In fact, they way I see it, it is the only chance they have. Instead of fooling around with clever new ways to do things that people don't want, how about putting some oomph behind NeoOffice?

AppleInsider is reporting that Apple is working on a spreadsheet app called "Numbers""...take it for what it's worth.

Well, there's Mesa, a nice standalone spreadsheet for Mac OS X (which dates back to the old NeXTSTEP days). Apple is supposedly working on a spreadsheet, rumored here. If "Numbers" is anything like Lotus Improv (a radically innovative spreadsheet from the old NeXTSTEP days, Google it for more information), then I would see the iWork suite becoming much more popular.

It's called "Numbers"

Well, if you believe the rumors, a spreadsheet is already being developed.

Until Apple has a Intel powered Mac out, I'd imagine that OS X will run on anything with supported hardware. However, if you check some of the MacRumors sites (thinksecret.com, MacRumors, Apple Insider to name a few), the general opinion is that they will use a different BIOS

Apple also makes excellent hardware designs. How about a Dual P4 iMac in a case the size it currently is? Apple is about hardware and software. Moving to Intel just means that they will be just as fast as anything you can get Windows to run on.

Jobs killed the clones because the clones were cannibalizing mac sales w/out generating the equivalent revenue.

OS X costs $129. The margins on a Mini are less than $100 -- probably closer to $50.

Pirates will always pirate, but be sure that Apple will open up OS X for licensing if enough receipts can be generated.

as long as they make OS X available for any Intel based system and don't try to lock people into using just their hardware

Sorry, but no such luck. :-(