Slashdot Mirror


Apple Intros 17" Unibody MBP, DRM-Free iTunes

Phil Schiller delivered the keynote at MacWorld, the first after the Steve Jobs era of keynotes. Here is Engadget's live blog. The big news, predicted by many rumor sites, was the introduction of the unibody 17" MacBook Pro. As rumored, the battery is not removable, but it's claimed to provide 8 hours of battery life (7 hours with the discrete graphics): "3x the charges and lifespan of the industry standard." $2,799, 2.66 GHz and 4 GB of RAM, 320GB hard drive, shipping at the end of January. There is a battery exchange program, and there is an option for a matte display. The other big news is that iTunes is going DRM-free: 8M songs today, all 10+M by the end of March. Song pricing will be flexible, as the studios have been demanding; the lowest song price is $0.69. Apple also introduced the beta of a Google Docs-like service, iWork.com.

1,079 comments

  1. Darn... no Mac Mini update by GeneralTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was really hoping to see an updated Mac Mini.

    --
    --- Tao
    1. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by terrapin44 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, I wanted a new mini. DRM-free music is nice though.

    2. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Ngarrang · · Score: 3, Funny

      They are getting rid of the DRM. Only one wish at a time granted, buddy!

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I was really really hoping for a mid-line system that didn't have a freaking built-in monitor! I've already got a 27" flatpanel which I'm not about to throw away for an iMac.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about a DOCK so that people who don't want to work all the time hunched over a laptop screen but DO want the convenience and reliability of a Mac laptop can work without having to place their laptop on a stack of paper reams to get it to eye level?

      Frankly, I've never understood why any manufacturer of ANY laptop, Mac or PC, would make a desktop-replacement grade laptop with no way to dock it so you can comfortably work AT A DESKTOP!

      Get a clue laptop makers!

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    5. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Docks are so 1998.

    6. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by tsalmark · · Score: 1, Informative

      Uhm, plug in your monitor and keyboard, it is a desk top replacement computer. Docks where originally to hold the difference between a laptop and desk top.

    7. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      I was hoping to see a discontinued Mac Mini ;-)

    8. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just checked it out. The prices of DRM free 256 Kb AAC are the same as 128kb DRM aac. so better quality and no drm and same price.

      why are they still offering the DRM version??

      perhaps there are some caveats. One assumes you are not supposed to give the un DRM versions out for free. but what about using them on more of your computers. perhaps the sale agreement has you agree not to use it on more than one computer at a time? even though nothing technical prevents you from violating the legal contract? Or are the sharing rights (5 computers) the same???

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    9. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, docks are so you don't HAVE to waste time plugging and unplugging your monitor, keyboard, mouse, external speakers, USB/Firewire devices, Etc. Just slap down (or slide in) the laptop and fire it up. Business-class laptops have had and still have this feature. For some reason home PC users and Mac users don't get that option.

      I have yet to hear a logical reason why beyond "well, you can just manually plug them in." Which isn't a good reason because it doesn't address the inevitable wear and tear (and breakage) on a port that constant removal and reattachment of connectors causes.

      Heck, this is why Apple swapped to the magnetic power plug! Why are the rest of the connections less important?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    10. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the nice things about 256 AAC is that it's high enough bit rate that one could transcode it to MP3 with essentially no noticable loss. 128KB was always a barrier to transcoding since it was just at the threshold of noticability.

      (i.e. I can just hear artifcats in 128 MP3, but not in 192kb MP3. I could not hear artifacts in 128KB AAC but I could easily hear artifacts in transcoded AAC to MP3 at 128KB. )

      With 256 the trasncoded versions should be artifact free I expect.

      I note the audio books are not DRM free even though many sellers (e.g. Borders) now offer DRM free audio books.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    11. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Dekortage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't suppose you've ever considered a third party solution?

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    12. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by PIBM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monitor + USB Keyboard + wireless mouse >>> Dock

    13. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by soupforare · · Score: 1

      Lenovo carries on the IBM tradition of multiple dock options.
      I believe the T-series luxo-dock even has a PCI slot, and another pair of cardbus slots.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    14. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but does iTunes run on Linux yet?

      *ducking*

    15. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Thornburg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The new Apple Cinema Displays using the displayport connector have a built in USB hub and feature automatic mode-switching features so that it works rather much like a dock... a very, very expensive dock.

    16. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have Tor and bittorrent. We don't need no stinkin' iTunes.

    17. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 1

      Why the heck would you need to transcode them to .mp3? So they'll play on your Nuvi?

    18. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      rAmen brother!
      I have Win2k in a VM just for iTunes. PITA.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    19. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      Would you look at that... Seems I need a new HP rep. A quick search of our laptops + docking station and I get a modern docking station recommended. Thanks.

    20. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      If you have DRM-free standard AAC, then why would you want to transcode to MP3? Is there some cranky old media player that can't handle AAC?

    21. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by chaim79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Heck, this is why Apple swapped to the magnetic power plug! Why are the rest of the connections less important?

      They swapped to the magnetic power plug to prevent the problem of people tripping over the power cord causing the laptop to fly across the room.

      Apple does offer a close solution if you buy one of their new displays, it comes with a cable that splits to three connections for the laptop: power, display, and USB (goes to a built in USB hub).

      The thing you forgot is that lots of docs were used to extend the number of ports available on the laptop, I remember one I had that contained an additional 5 ports (not including display, keyboard, mouse, and ones already present on the laptop) on the dock, so you could plug it in and get it all. There was even an option on mine to have expanded ram on the doc for the laptop to use.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    22. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Yaztromo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, docks are so you don't HAVE to waste time plugging and unplugging your monitor, keyboard, mouse, external speakers, USB/Firewire devices, Etc. Just slap down (or slide in) the laptop and fire it up. Business-class laptops have had and still have this feature. For some reason home PC users and Mac users don't get that option.

      Use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Most LCD displays have their own USB hub built in, and the Apple displays even have their own laptop power lead.

      Given this, I fail to see how a dock is in any way superior to popping your MacBook onto a desk, plugging in the display, power, and USB cable (the ports for which are all on the same side of the laptop for the new Mini DisplayPort models, and the leads from the display are all part of a single cable that terminates in the three connectors), and starting to use it. Heck, the MacBooks will even happily run with the lid closed, driving solely the external display. Where is the advantage of a space-wasting dock then the display itself effectively is the dock?

      Yaz.

    23. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by timster · · Score: 1

      Don't throw it away -- last I checked the iMac supported dual displays.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    24. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      Archos players don't support the format out of the box (or at least the 605/705 didn't), but the codec was purchasable after the fact. There may be a few more, who knows. Maybe he's still using an MP3-CD player. I personally prefer MP3 because I know it will work pretty much anywhere, but I'd never transcode to get them unless I was starting with a FLAC rip.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    25. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's not as elegant, you can simply plug in an external monitor, mouse and keyboard to your MacBook when you sit at your desk. To make it easier, you can get a USB hub (Heck, a standard Mac keyboard works like one!) and plug your peripherals into that, that way you only have one USB connector and one monitor connector to plug in.

      I know that's an extra 5 seconds added to the process from docking one of those other laptops, but you can do it.

    26. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, so you want to force everyone to have yet another port on their laptop that adds to the weight and style just so that they can doc their laptop in one or 2 seconds less.

      You claim that the monitor and USB ports are going to get messed up over time but the docs port will likely suffer the same fate.

      Yes, docs are ok for business users who use the machine at their desks 90% of the time but Id be that mac laptops are used off of desks more often than on desks. Apple is simply targeting the needs of their users and that means a 2 second inconvenience for the minority.

      If a doc really means that much to you, buy a laptop with a doc, but I think the market has show that the majority of users don't really care that much.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    27. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      10 years ago it was decided that plugging in a display, speakers and a usb hub really isn't that much bother.

    28. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Don853 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I, personally, have an old mp3 cd player in my car with no aux input that I don't feel like spending the hundred bucks and few hours to replace. So for me it would be nice.

    29. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      All my music is DRM-free, that's how I was able to get it :D

    30. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Or are the sharing rights (5 computers) the same??

      Does anyone know about some hack which removes this limit from iTunes? It suck balls. I've seen "routers" with iTunes sharing, I assume they run their own software and therefor don't have this limit, are there any iTunes alternatives without it or any cracks which removes it?

      Also I really wonder what Apple thought then they made AirTunes only work with iTunes and not all sound as you can do it with iTunes (and also why they have no mixer for changing volume / application), and finally why the fuck they have both the Airport Extreme and Express, I want wireless sound AND be able to connect a harddrive, how hard can it be to understand?

      ATM it looks like the best solution for me would be a netbook maxed out with ram running as wireless accesspoint with external harddrives and airfoil / some other solution for music + webserver with web interface for a bittorrent client.

    31. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, not all of us Apple users have iEverything so we can play our AACs everywhere. Hell, my phone has problems with anything other than .mp3 but I wouldn't give it up for an iPhone.

    32. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But if you use AAC why get a player which don't support it? Seems rather stupid to convert it to MP3. Sonys MP3-players and Sony Ericsson phones can play AAC can't they? Don't know if Cowon can, to lazy to check. Archos?

    33. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Comboman · · Score: 1

      Why the heck would you need to transcode them to .mp3? So they'll play on your Nuvi?

      ... or iRiver ... or cell phone ... or DVD player ... or car stereo. Whatever marginal benefits AAC may have over MP3, it is far from being universally supported.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    34. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Just get a hack, no reason to support retarded configurations at too high prices.

    35. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

      Might I interest you in a nice PowerBook Duo?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqLT0UBPx0

    36. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      Wow. And all this time I've been plugging in external monitors, keyboards, and mice without a dock. What was I thinking?!? I should have known it was too simple.

    37. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > While it's not as elegant

      If it's not "elegant" than it isn't worthy of being discussed in an Apple thread.

      If I wanted something that looked like a mini with 4 more external devices
      and the associated power bricks I would just buy a Dell.

      This is why there's a mini in the living room and a monsterous franken-PC
      with a nice roomy case and SATA hotswap rack under my desk here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    38. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      I plug a keyboard into my laptop every day at work, and a monitor and keyboard every day when I get home. The ports work fine after two years.

      Suck it up, seriously.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    39. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      A lot of media players don't play AAC. My car's CD player supports a bunch of MP3's burned to a disc just fine, but no AAC. It's a feature I like. Long road trips are just a tad more enjoyable when I can pack 150 songs on a CD instead of 18.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    40. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by adolf · · Score: 1

      What crazy moon world do you live in where people only ever play music on one device?

      I've got an RCA DVD player in the bedroom which plays MP3, but not AAC. My Rio Volt plays MP3 CDs and OGG CDs, but not AACs. One car does have an AAC-capable player, the other car does not.

      Both mine and my wife's iPods support AAC, and so does the PS3, but our son's solid-state Creative player does not.

      And so on, and so forth. The only thing these players all have in common is that if you give them an MP3 with reasonably not-broken ID3 tags, it generally will play it just fine. I can't do this with OGG, or FLAC, or AAC. It's hard enough to try to keep a good, organized music library online, without having to fuck with format incompatibilities on top of it.

    41. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, not all of us Apple users have iEverything so we can play our AACs everywhere. Hell, my phone has problems with anything other than .mp3 but I wouldn't give it up for an iPhone.

      You are aware that AAC is not exclusive to Apple, right? Even the Zune can play AAC-encoded files.

      The parent of your post has a valid point in saying that some older players can't handle anything but MP3. But it seems to me that complaining about AAC because of Apple is analogous to saying "I'm sticking with VHS tapes because not all of us can afford those new Sony DVD players".

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    42. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      MP3 format: just about ever player can play the file.

      AAC format: fewer players can play the file.

      Why not have the format that most players can use without issue.

    43. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by yelvington · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can just hear artifcats in 128 MP3, but not in 192kb MP3.

      Couple more weeks with those earbuds and we'll fix that for you.

      I said, COUPLE MORE WEEKS ....

    44. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the nice things about 256 AAC is that it's high enough bit rate that one could transcode it to MP3 with essentially no noticable loss. 128KB was always a barrier to transcoding since it was just at the threshold of noticability.

      (i.e. I can just hear artifcats in 128 MP3, but not in 192kb MP3. I could not hear artifacts in 128KB AAC but I could easily hear artifacts in transcoded AAC to MP3 at 128KB. )

      With 256 the trasncoded versions should be artifact free I expect.

      I note the audio books are not DRM free even though many sellers (e.g. Borders) now offer DRM free audio books.

      At higher bitrates, it's not artifacts that are the problem, but the depth that you hear and _feel_ , the tiny details like the reverberations of sounds as they move through the air, etc.

    45. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jojo80 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the older versions run just fine in Wine!

    46. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Quite aware. I've owned two different non-Apple MP3 players that played AAC, and my last car's factory radio played them. That was sarcasm, not ignorance. However, this discussion was about people wanting to transcode to MP3 to avoid any possible issues with AAC. Not all AAC-compatible players really work that well with the format. My old Samsung player was hit-or-miss, and my car tended to spit out CDs that mixed MP3 and AAC formats; I had to burn one or the other.

      So I say again, as an Apple owner and admirer: Not everyone wants all Apple products and some of us prefer having just one format for our music.

    47. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by olddotter · · Score: 1

      I expected at least a press release about a new mini. I wonder if they are just trying to push people towards Laptops? The desk top options don't appeal to me. You get A, B, or C, where A - is an underpowered micro machine that is nice and quiet. B - is a nicely powered desk top with a built in monitor that I can't hook my company Windoze PC into when working from home (is also smaller than my current monitor) C - is a $2000 to $3000 monster aimed at Video editors, and wild, obsessed Mac WoW gamers.

    48. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Because 128 kbps AAC sounds a lot better than 128 kbps MP3 and thus you can have an acceptable sound quality and better storage capacity?

    49. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      was really hoping to see an updated Mac Mini.

      I'm sure you will, but it's not surprising that it's not exciting enough for the MWSF keynote. Probably just a CPU/GPU/Memory/Disk upgrade.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    50. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Most LCD displays have their own USB hub built in, and the Apple displays even have their own laptop power lead.

      Given this, I fail to see how a dock is in any way superior to popping your MacBook onto a desk, plugging in the display, power, and USB cable (the ports for which are all on the same side of the laptop for the new Mini DisplayPort models, and the leads from the display are all part of a single cable that terminates in the three connectors), and starting to use it. Heck, the MacBooks will even happily run with the lid closed, driving solely the external display. Where is the advantage of a space-wasting dock then the display itself effectively is the dock?

      Yaz.

      Time. And it is a lot harder to screw up plugging a laptop to a dock then all the connections everyday.

      I do mean a real dock. Not the USB ones. The USB ones have terrible network speed. Everything is going through that one USB port. That special connection on the bottom (or back depending on laptop) made thing a lot easier. Remember not every laptop user is going to take the time to gently plug in the monitor, USB keyboard, mouse, and network cable. Many people have a type of keyboard they prefer. The blue tooth ones often do not fit what the end user is looking for. So just get a blue tooth keyboard and mouse is often not a viable option.

    51. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you've ever considered a third party solution?

      I can see that you haven't met many Mac owners yet.

    52. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's awesome because there aren't other places to get drm-free music online today.

    53. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Cryolithic · · Score: 1

      Simply put this is a very danceable format. Music playing through it results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace - this format smacks that right on the nose big time.

    54. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Ditto. If they had announced a Mac Mini refresh, I would have bought it as soon as it was available. Alas, they did not.

      Of course, I'm also kind of holding out for the Mini to support dual-head (at different resolutions), but that'll probably never happen.

    55. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by holloway · · Score: 1

      Which versions? Is there a tutorial on that?

    56. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aonaran · · Score: 0

      Less fiddling with connectors. If I want to undock my Dell i push a button and ALL of the connectors are disconnected. I want to dock it I just drop it into place and push down a bit, it clicks and ALL the connectors are done.

    57. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Dock suck. They are overpriced, add crappy ports to your laptop, and have to be bought for specific models. And they wear out and break really easily. The only people I've seen using docks are moronic executives. As you say - "business class" laptops have them. And those machines are for suckers who want to feel important.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    58. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

      MP3 is an older format that most players use. AAC was designed by the MPEG group to replace MP3. This new format is not Apple's doing. Apple is simply trying to stay ahead of the curve. As for other players not working well with AAC, that is not Apple's fault. Would you complain that Firefox is crappy because IE can't handle standard HTML? If you want to stick with MP3, you are free to rip your music off CDs or buy from Amazon. No one is forcing you to buy from iTunes.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by proc_tarry · · Score: 1

      Great, now let me sync my iPhone to both my work & home PC's iTunes.

    60. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Time. And it is a lot harder to screw up plugging a laptop to a dock then all the connections everyday.

      How in the world could one "screw up" plugging in power, monitor and USB? That's a real head scratcher. If you've seen some of the docks on the market, they are much more laborious to connect, and much easier to screw up with.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    61. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I wish Apple would upgrade to HE-AAC with SBR (also known as AAC+). It does a much better job of preserving the high-frequency components above 15,000 hertz.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    62. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Hence the other name for a dock, "port replicator".

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    63. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aquickone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Weak... If you cant hear the difference between an mp3 and a cd ( or 1/2 track for that matter ) you have no right posting this type of crap in the first place....

    64. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Only if played through a system with danceable cables of course ;)

    65. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      If you have DRM-free standard AAC, then why would you want to transcode to MP3? Is there some cranky old media player that can't handle AAC?

      Yes. Most of the non Apple players, DVDs, car stereos, PDAs, computers etc.. In fact, outside Apple, most digital music players will not play AAC. All will play MP3 however. So which is the better long time storage medium for purchased music to be played on devices other than iProducts? There are possibly more players that support OGG than AAC.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    66. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      My out of warranty iMac G5 burnt into flames last week. Needed a new PSU, logic board and case. £520 to repair, lucky Apple decided to pay for the repair in full.

      Bring back the cube form-factor, with full sized hard drive, GPU and a spare PCI Express socket.

    67. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      Which versions? Is there a tutorial on that?

      Here you go.

    68. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      So having to change batteries, plugging and unplugging multiple cables every time you sit down is easier than plopping your laptop onto a dock?

      How about extra ram in the dock? Extra pci slots? Don't forget that network cable that isn't included in your "three connectors". I also won't even get into how overpriced the apple monitors that even support this is.

      Seriously... turn the fanboism off for just 2 seconds.

      I went from a dell inspiron to a macbook pro. Do I like the macbook? Of course. Can it compete with dell's dock? Not even close. No matter how many excuses you make as to why Apple "doesn't need one".

    69. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      When did I ever say anything was Apple's fault? Improper AAC support is the fault of the various other manufacturers and I never once claimed anything was Apple's fault.

      And you're right, no one is forcing me to buy from iTunes, but now that I can get unrestricted AAC (i.e. easily convertible to MP3) on nearly every song in the store, I can add them to my favorite music vendors.

    70. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well, if DRMs are out, I see no good reasons to keep tis thing proprietary. The value is in the server, not the client...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    71. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the nice things about 256 AAC is that it's high enough bit rate that one could transcode it to MP3 with essentially no noticable loss.

      No. A personal example from several years ago: I ripped Dark Side of the Moon to 320kbps MP3s. Later, I heard about Ogg Vorbis and decided to transcode them (to maybe ~300kbps). Something wasn't quite right. After a few minutes of listening, it was clear: the sound of one of the cymbals had completely changed. I'm not a crazy person. Past 128kbps or so, I *suck* at ABX tests. But different algorithms do very different things, and transcoding to a different format is *not* a good idea. These days, with 1TB external drives costing EUR 99, I just rip to FLAC. To stick 'em on my iPod, lame --vbr-new -V2.

    72. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by angrytuna · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a huge issue for me. There were some issues with hardware encoded locking with the 6th generation ipods (the ipod nano with the video screen). Prior iPods could be mounted and the music interchange performed with a variety of different linux software packages. These newer versions could be mounted and read, but writes just plain failed.

      I had just finished purchasing a nano for my sister for christmas as well (I had previously set her up with an ubuntu box). She's having to use a roommate's XP box to do the transfer. This is an area where Apple has done far worse than just drop the ball, in my book. I've been an Apple fan for awhile, but they lost a lot of my goodwill when I discovered this move.

      --

      It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

    73. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Who are you kidding? Macbook users don't sit at a desk. They do all their "work" over the free wi-fi at the coffee shop.

    74. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's very common for cell phones to support AACs too.

      For anyone who doesn't know, AAC was basically developed by the same group that developed MP3, and it was developed as a replacement for MP3.

      Now it's a little more confusing than MP3s because AAC files vary a little. They might have any one of a number of extensions, including AAC, MP4, M4A, or 3GP. AACs with some of these extensions may be effectively identical, or they might be very different. Not all players can play all varieties of AACs.

      It's a bit confusing, but none the less, it's worth noting that many players can play AACs from iTunes, provided they don't have DRM. So Apple getting the labels to agree to sell all audio without DRM is a very good thing.

    75. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait til you are over 3 and can't hear anything above 15khz anyway. Its all good.

    76. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I've got a dock for my Thinkpad, and it's awesome. I would hesitate to buy any laptop in the future that did not have some sort of docking station or port extender. And no, a USB hub is **NOT** a port extender!

      I can dock and undock my laptop in two seconds, without any ratsnest of cords snaking over my desktop, no cords getting lost behind the desk while I'm away, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    77. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wake me up when there is drm free lossless music for free delivered by nymphomaniac blonde vixens at my basement

    78. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Galrion · · Score: 1

      I bought myself one of these a while ago to use for my laptop: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/keyboards/keyboard/devices/190&cl=US,EN

      The Logitech Alto. Basically it's a stand for your laptop with a keyboard and usb hub (powered, cord sold separately) for use with any laptop (provided you have USB ports).

    79. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by leamanc · · Score: 1

      Both of the DVD players in my house play AAC. My car stereo does also, playing ISO-9660 formatted discs with either MP3, AAC or WMA files on them. Yes, I know you will run into a product here or there that only supports MP3, but I think all this talk of the lack of devices that support MP4/AAC is greatly exaggerated.

      --
      :q!
    80. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I think they got rid of DRM for music. What about Video?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    81. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Why duck?
      Really FSX, Steam, and ITunes are the only reason I boot out of Linux.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    82. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by pizzach · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the wikipedia aac article some interesting entries:

      • The PlayStation 3 supports encoding and decoding of AAC files.
      • The Xbox 360 supports streaming of AAC through the Zune software, and off supported iPods connected through the USB port
      • The Wii video game console supports AAC files through version 1.1 of the Photo Channel as of December 11, 2007. All AAC profiles and bitrates are supported as long as it is in the.m4a file extension. This update removed MP3 compatibility, but users who have installed this may freely downgrade to the old version if they wish.[10]
      • Microsoft Windows Mobile platforms support AAC either by the native Windows Media Player or by third-party products (TCPMP, CorePlayer)
      • Sony Ericsson phones support various AAC formats in MP4 container. AAC-LC is supported in all phones beginning with K700, phones beginning with W550 have support of HE-AAC. The latest devices such as the P990, K610, W890i and later support HE-AAC v2.
      • Nokia XpressMusic and other new generation Nokia multimedia phones: also support AAC format.
      • BlackBerry: RIM's latest series of Smartphones such as the 8100 ("Pearl") and 8800 support AAC.
      • Creative Zen Portable
      • Microsoft Zune
      • SanDisk Sansa
      • Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) with firmware 2.0 or greater
      • Sony Walkman
      • SonyEricsson Walkman Phones-W series, e.g. W890i
      • Nintendo DSi To be released in America mid-2009

      Back in April 2007, wired magazine said that only 10% of mp3 players supported AAC. Nowadays if the freaking Nintendo DS and Sony PSP even support AAC, it's probably safe to say at least half of new MP3 players support AAC, if not more. It's starting to be come a industry standard along with mp3. Who woulda thunk it back in 2007.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    83. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      > In fact, outside Apple, most digital music players will not play AAC

      Please tell me more of this alternate universe you come from.

      >There are possibly more players that support OGG than AAC

      Least DRM free means I can finally use Itunes for my ipod. I use rockbox so I can play flac. (apple lossless you say? why I am. a. too lazy and b. perfer flac for long term storage)

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    84. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      No, but at least now if you have a big iTunes library, you can pay to un-DRM and your purchased music is no longer held hostage.

    85. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      Agree 100%. It probably sounds bizarre to people who have a different mode of use, but the lack of reasonable docking stations is probably the main reason I just purchased another Dell instead of a Mac.

      When your laptop is your desktop and you have dozens of peripherals and you want a workspace that is clean and effective, the fully integrated docking station is a beauty to behold :-)

    86. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I personally think Apple is really missing an opportunity on the desktop front that could hurt them in the long run. Vista is pretty much a dud, with many of the public staying away in droves. IMHO this would be a perfect opportunity to grab some market share while still keeping the high profits they enjoy on the laptop front. The problem with the mini IMHO is the lack of expansion, and they seem to have a hole in their product line between the mini and the Mac Pro, which is why we have been seeing these hackintoshes show up.

      IMHO they could really pick up some of the customers avoiding Vista if they would release a Mac Mini with say, 1 PCI and 1 PCIe expansion slot, and maybe followed by a "Mini Pro Tower" that added a couple more PCIe slots and a little faster CPU. Because frankly the Mac Pro is simply overkill for the home users but not having any way to upgrade and using more expensive laptop parts makes that Mini not as attractive to the home market. By releasing the above desktop models now, before Win7 comes out, this would not only IMO give them a good chance to snatch up some of the unhappy Vista customers, but by giving them a decent affordable desktop they could give them a chance to experience OSX and drive future sales to their more profitable laptop lines because the new users will be familiar with OSX and be more inclined to buy Apple laptops.

      But if they wait too long and Win7 turns out to actually be good they will have missed a golden opportunity IMHO. Then again Jobs has always come off as a little elitist to me so maybe he simply doesn't want to convert those unwashed Windows masses to OSX. After all he is already making money hand over fist, perhaps he has decided that he likes OSX right where it is at currently?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    87. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      No more or less wear and tear than a giant dock connector that you're going to need between the laptop and your docking station.

      The MacBook Pro has USB ports for your keyboard and mouse (or you can have the mouse connected to the keyboard) and a mini display connector, which with an adapter to hook up to your display connector of choice is a quick friction-fit port on the side.

      So, to "dock" your Macbook pro currently you need to plug in your USB keyboard, mini display connector and you're away.

      If you want to keep the connections down to a minimum, you can connect a USB hub to your keyboard (or the keyboard to the hub and the hub into the MacBook when you 'dock up'), then your other peripherals can connect to that hub. If you need a firewire connection or absolutely must have a wired ethernet connection (say you just want to be assured of connectivity or you have some big files to move over GigE) then the port is right there on the side.

      You don't need to fiddle about behind the laptop to plug anything in, so there's really no need for a cumbersome docking station any more - the convenience factor of mating the typically large multi connector between the base and the laptop isn't better than the few seconds it takes to hook up a couple of cables. Double downside is that now I have a large docking port on my laptop that I have to protect from damage that is either on the bottom or side of my laptop, making the laptop bigger or adding some sort of panel I have to remove, or some mechanism that opens up like a set of doors. Either way, it's an extra "weakness" in the case (along with the already existing ports that really have to be there anyway).

      I just don't see a dock as a piece of hardware that people really want - it's main useful function (beyond one stop connection to laptop) is to be a hub for peripherals, and in the vast majority of cases for consumer devices now, a simple, small USB hub will take care of that if you need it (or you have wireless printing, or remote device sharing if the laptop is not the main machine).

    88. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by prockcore · · Score: 1

      And those machines are for suckers who want to feel important.

      Hey, that's Apple's market!

    89. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Considering how lame this keynote was I hardly think the MacMini wouldn't be one of the stars of the show. This has to be the worst show since the infamous iCards, or the Flowerpower/Dalmatian Blue iMacs. The iMac and Mac Pro really need updates, and the MacMini is positively a dinosaur, in a time when the shift is toward lower cost machines

    90. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      MP3 format: just about ever player can play the file.

      AAC format: fewer players can play the file.

      Why not have the format that most players can use without issue.

      Or Ogg.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    91. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plug it into the iMac and use both. :-)

    92. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by DontPanic6x9 · · Score: 1

      To everyone surprised by the DRM-Free thing-You have to upgrade your libraries to make it DRM, costing 30 cents a song. That means iTunes will be raking in a shitload of cash as people convert their libraries.

    93. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who switched to Mac for my laptop, I have to say that people don't switch in baby steps like that - and that it would be frustrating for them if they did.

      Most consumers don't collect computers, either. They will get a replacement system at least as powerful as their older system. Having a lightweight "entry level" Mac system isn't going to convert anyone.

      Almost everyone I know who switched did it the way I did: on the laptop, not on the desktop, for a range of reasons, not the least of which is that the desktop is becoming the preserve of gamers.

    94. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why transcode AAC?

      Most portebel music players can play AAC today

    95. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      > In fact, outside Apple, most digital music players will not play AAC

      Please tell me more of this alternate universe you come from.

      It's the one where AAC is a minority format that only a few digital music players use. Sorry.. I'm RDS negative, So I don't imagine the world follows Apple's every move.

      While every pmp, most PDAs, most devices capable of playing downloaded music files such as DVD players, play MP3.

      But please.. Prove me wrong. I'm sure you can find more non apple digital music playing devices that play AAC than I can find that don't. There must be a huge number of AAC playing DVD players, Hifi CD players, and the like that have full AAC format support. I'm sure all the other stores are just using MP3 and FLAC to spite Apple because they are so jealous..

      Least DRM free means I can finally use Itunes for my ipod. I use rockbox so I can play flac. (apple lossless you say? why I am. a. too lazy and b. perfer flac for long term storage)

      Or any other music download store. I know that 7digital here in the UK are selling FLAC as an option.

      It's good that Apple are finally joining the rest of the world and selling DRM free tracks. Perhaps eventually they will allow those who want it, to connect any player and become a general music download store.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    96. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think if the Mini had PCI slots, it wouldn't be "mini" anymore. Its size would grow and you'd be looking at yet another desktop box. If you need to expand beyond what you can do with firewire and usb, then you should have a regular desktop or workstation anyway.

    97. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      But if you have more storage capacity (and therefore can use a higher bit rate) the quality differences between AAC and MP3 are debatable.

    98. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the time before USB 2.0 Yes dock's were nice.

      But today. What are you missing from the dock that is not in the laptop, or can be plugged in to the USB port?

    99. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 0

      No, its more like complaining that we don't want to buy any more minidiscs, even though sony is no longer the only one that makes them. Cd's are more ubiquitous, even if they might not be as advanced as the minidisc. My car stereo ( purchased 4 moths ago) only plays mp3s. Its vastly better supported than aac. That's why Amazon uses it.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    100. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dock suck. They are overpriced, add crappy ports to your laptop, and have to be bought for specific models.

      Whereas the Mac itself is overpriced, has important ports randomly removed from it, and has to be bought to run specific software on it.

      Oh, and they wear out and break really easily.

    101. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      I've been doing that manually with my Windows box for five years because Windows XP is shit for dealing with docks, and have yet to have anything break. When does this "wear and tear" cut in?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    102. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Mike_ya · · Score: 1

      I spent about $30 and in a hours time had a aux input in my Ford Ranger.
      With a stock stereo I installed a modulator that sits between the radio and the antenna.
      The shuffle works great with the podcasts I download or mp3's I have ripped from CDs I own.

      Having said that I absolutely welcome apple going drm free. They will get more of my business overtime instead of Amazon.

    103. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Bobartig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry, everyone feels this way, and has been saying the same thing for *checks watch* about 11 years now.

      Lots of power users want the mid-range tower. It's an obvious hole in their desktop lineup. They don't want a Mini, or an iMac, which essentially have the same expandability. They don't want the high end tower, which has been prohibitively expensive, and the only expandable mac option for over a decade now (since the B&W G3 tower). So, you're totally right, but this is hardly a revelation.

      --
      This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
    104. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by quenda · · Score: 1

      No, docks are so you don't HAVE to waste time plugging and unplugging your monitor, keyboard, mouse, external speakers, USB/Firewire devices, Etc.

      Yes, your argument made perfect sense before we had USB hubs. Who needs a dock when it's just USB-hub and monitor now?

      Even easier: just remote-desktop over wifi from your desktop. Zero plugs!

    105. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm also kind of holding out for the Mini to support dual-head (at different resolutions), but that'll probably never happen.

      Highly unlikely. That would make it a possible alternative for some users to the Mac Pro, and you will never see that happen so long as The Steve is in charge.

      For the same reason we'll never see a mid-range Mac tower until he's gone, despite the demand for one.

    106. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I've never understood why any manufacturer of ANY laptop, Mac or PC, would make a desktop-replacement grade laptop with no way to dock it so you can comfortably work AT A DESKTOP!

      My MBP usually lives on one of these so I avoid using the horrible keyboard which blighted the Alu MBP.

      Plugging in the power, Ethernet, video and a single USB and power takes a whole ten seconds, so its hardly a chore.

      Lots of laptop manufacturers do (or did) produce docks - including Apple - but they never seem to have taken the world by storm. They add to the build cost of the laptop (custom connectors) and tend to be expensive (and, lets face it, you really need one for home and one for work).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    107. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Afforess · · Score: 1

      If the Wii (The most underpowered next gen console) can play AAC files (Which it can) then all devices should be supported. If they are not, blame the manufacturer.

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    108. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by El+Icaro · · Score: 1

      Nerds use DRM as a reason to pirate music and when they remove DRM they still pirate it.

      Might as well keep DRM then and stop the minority that don't know how to use bittorrent.

    109. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Get one of these for your last generation MacBook:

      http://eshop.macsales.com/item/BookEndz/BEMBP15F/

      or if you have the 17" MacBook.

      http://eshop.macsales.com/item/BookEndz/BEMBP17/

      They also make one for the old style 13" MacBook

      http://eshop.macsales.com/item/BookEndz/BEMB13B/

      I've used the MacBook dock and the MacBook Pro dock and they're indispensable. Once I had decent docking solution I was able to get rid of my G5 tower and replace it with a MacBook Pro.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    110. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They're actually introducing variable pricing. As such, new tracks will all be $1.29 (what, you actually believe that scum like Sony will ever use that $0.69 bracket?). To be honest, it's the music publishers who've won here, they've managed to strongarm Apple into giving up fixed prices in exchange for what they gave Amazon for free (everything DRM-free)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    111. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Apple's new LCD display is a dock, plug in your USB and dvi and power into the display directly and you can use bluetooth mice and keyboards with it. That's apple's current solution.

    112. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps people have such different demands (or lack of) that they leave it up to 3rd parties? Why do you expect them to make every possible accessory themselves?

    113. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Lots of laptop manufacturers do (or did) produce docks - including Apple - but they never seem to have taken the world by storm. They add to the build cost of the laptop (custom connectors) and tend to be expensive (and, lets face it, you really need one for home and one for work).

      They never took the world by storm. Hmmmm, let's see, number of IBM/Lenovo laptops with docking stations I've seen in my last two jobs, too numerous to count. Number of Macintoshes I've seen in my last two jobs, less than 20. Yeah, those Lenovo guys, they're hardly selling any hardware at all.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    114. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Then again Jobs has always come off as a little elitist to me so maybe he simply doesn't want to convert those unwashed Windows masses to OSX. After all he is already making money hand over fist, perhaps he has decided that he likes OSX right where it is at currently?"
      That isn't really elitist that is just good business. I just got an iPod Touch for Christmas. Guess what? I really like it. I am a Linux guy at heart but the touch really does work well. I use it all the time now and I really do like it. If I could just get ITunes that runs under Linux I would be really happy.
      I would love to se a new Mac Cube with a PCIe slot. BTW that is all they really need is one for a video card. That would help swing some gamers over as well. But I think you hit it on the head. They are selling Macs like hot cakes now and making a mint. Why slug it out with Microsoft when they are making great gobs of cash right now?
      Heck I would love to see an Apple Netbook as well as the Apple mac with a slot but right now Apple doesn't really seem to need them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    115. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If apple would utilize the full capabilities of the displayport, you could use the one displayport cable to carry, video, sound and usb.

      This would almost be a dock with all your connections limited to your magsafe power and displayport carrying the rest.

    116. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Or are the sharing rights (5 computers) the same??

      Does anyone know about some hack which removes this limit from iTunes?

      The sound quality will be degraded some, but then again I prefer vinyl records, however you can burn your iTunes music to CD then rip the CD. The songs can then be played on any number of players.

      Myself what I want to do is get a new turntable. Though I've been seeing more and more stores carrying them, some with built-in USB so you can connect them right to your computer, I want to find one that has a good sound quality. Then I'll get a new Reel to reel tape deck. What I did before and will do again is the first tyme I played a record I'd record it on my tape deck then put the record away for safe keeping while I played the tape.

      Falcon

    117. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by westlake · · Score: 1
      Vista is pretty much a dud, with many of the public staying away in droves. IMHO this would be a perfect opportunity to grab some market share while still keeping the high profits they enjoy on the laptop front.

      Vista ended the year with 21% of the market and the MacIntel with 7%. Top Operating System Share Trend

      This is the MS Vista Basic desktop at WalMart.com at $700:

      Dell Inspiron 531s Sempron CPU, 19" widescreen monitor, 4 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, HP Multifunction Printer-Scanner, MS Office Home and Student 2007 [Full Version]

      Vista Premium at $800:

      HP Pavilion Desktop 2 GHz Intel Dual-Core CPU, 22" screen, 3 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD.

      64 Bit Vista Premium at $900 + options:

      HP Pavilion Desktop AMD 2.2 GHz Phenom Quad Core CPU, 6 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD, nForce chip set and NVIDIA 6150 DX 10 graphics

      The point being that the headless Mac Mini remains a tough sell in the mass consumer market.

    118. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I was really really hoping for a mid-line system that didn't have a freaking built-in monitor! I've already got a 27" flatpanel which I'm not about to throw away for an iMac.

      A second monitor can be hooked up to an iMac, check out MacRumors: Forums. Here's Apple's support page on Connecting an external monitor to your iMac's VGA monitor port. You may want to use another connection, like DVI, but I found those with a quick search.

      Falcon

    119. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the heck do you use PCI cards for these days anyway?

      This isn't a flame/troll. I'm genuinely curious --- what functionality can be provided by a PCI(e) card that can't also be provided via USB or Firewire?

      "Expensive laptop parts" doesn't really apply to the Mini. The price premium for USB devices over their internal equivalent is down to a bare minimum. SO-DIMM memory barely costs more than a full-sized DIMM, and replacing the 2.5" hard drive is largely irrelevant, given that you can just as easily add an external device if you really want more storage. Chipsets and CPU sockets change so frequently that you probably also wouldn't be interested in changing the CPU in any machine.

      Graphics is the only thing that immediately comes to mind, and there are other ways to accommodate that scenario (socketed GPUs, or ignoring the problem entirely since macs don't really "do" games). I have a Mac Mini, and this is pretty much my only complaint.

      Your last point also stands out particularly well. The average person doesn't care about expandability. The average laptop is barely expandable at all (I do have to penalize Apple here for making their laptops unnecessarily difficult to service), yet we see laptop sales dominating the "home user" segment of the market. Apple seems to have hit the "sweet spot" of price and features with the Macbook, which is the only logical explanation for why the things sell so well.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    120. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by tvon · · Score: 1

      A laptop stand + USB keyboard is probably cheaper than any dock would be. I run mine closed with an external monitor hooked up.

    121. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I meant LAN sharing in iTunes (or WAN with vlan software), not the number of units you're allowed to play DRM:ed tracks on.

    122. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by seebs · · Score: 1

      That's not a dock. It's a hack, and I don't really mean that in the positive sense.

      I had one of their "docks" for the Pismo (G3 400). It sorta worked most of the time but lost connections sometimes, because there was no design for actually locking the laptop to the dock. That looks some better, but fundamentally, the machine's not designed for it.

      I've had docking laptops (a ThinkPad and an HP), and a real docking connector is MUCH different from the Bookendz things.

      And yes, I would pay more for a dock-capable machine. Right now, I'm probably sticking with the Apple machines because the time I spend connecting cables is not as big an issue as the time I would have to spend messing with Windows -- I learned that back when I was using that ThinkPad. (And yes, I do have to have one or the other as an option. Life's tough.) Still, a dock would be worth a lot more to me. Honestly, I care a lot more about that than about how thin they can make the machine. I'd be fine with a machine half an inch thicker and a pound or two heavier if it had a docking station and ran cooler.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    123. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      What do you think about the iMac? It's Apple's product of choice for consumers who need more than the Mini, but less than the Mac Pro. Of course, it suffers from the similar limitations as the Mini. Hardware upgrades are a pain in the ass, though they are possible -- potentially messy, but possible.

      I too would like to see a mini-tower, but the only two components I find myself wanting to upgrade are video capture cards, video cards, and hard drives. I'd love to see something in the form factor of a PowerPC G4 Cube, though necessarily taller.

    124. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why duck? Because the way I saw it, I was likely to be modded flamebait by the rabid Apple fanbois. As it is, I received at least one 'overrated' mod -- you know, the usual mod abuse of the not-subject-to-metamod overrated/underrated mods.

    125. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "ignoring the problem entirely since macs don't really "do" games"

      Unfortunately, I do games. So do a lot of other Mac users. Recently with the World of Warcraft expansion a lot of Mac users had to turn down their graphic levels to play the game acceptably. This is on fairly recent machines such as the previous generation Macbook Pros and iMacs. Sadly there is no upgrade path aside from getting a new Mac. I guess ultimately that benefits Apple.
      I switched back to using my 2 year old PC because the performance was better with a more powerful video card.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    126. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      As for the iMac - at the price point:

      The processor is under powered. Where is a quad core option?
      The video card is under powered and not upgradeable.
      You have to buy the expensive 24" version to get a better video card. The video card in the 24" version won't handle newer games at the native res with effects turned all the way up.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    127. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by keatonguy · · Score: 1

      In that case, we'd better put you in cryogenic freeze, because it's gonna be a damn long time before things get that good.

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
    128. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I meant LAN sharing in iTunes (or WAN with vlan software), not the number of units you're allowed to play DRM:ed tracks on.

      My misunderstanding then.

      Falcon

    129. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Yup, works great too. My work configuration is an Intel 17" iMac with a 20" LCD attached. There's an adapter for the MiniDV port, pretty sure it's optional. A big step up from the same LCD hooked to a G5; not worth losing half the accounting team for, but close.

      I was hoping for an updated Mini, I'm in the market as soon as it's out. Theory: new Minis are delayed until Nvidia sorts out whatever went wrong with the new GPUs .

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    130. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      No, docks are so you don't HAVE to waste time plugging and unplugging your monitor, keyboard, mouse, external speakers, USB/Firewire devices, Etc. Just slap down (or slide in) the laptop and fire it up. Business-class laptops have had and still have this feature. For some reason home PC users and Mac users don't get that option.

      I have yet to hear a logical reason why beyond "well, you can just manually plug them in." Which isn't a good reason because it doesn't address the inevitable wear and tear (and breakage) on a port that constant removal and reattachment of connectors causes.

      Heck, this is why Apple swapped to the magnetic power plug! Why are the rest of the connections less important?

      Docks exist for use with Mac Book Pros: http://www.bookendzdocks.com/Docking_Stations-Docking_Station_for_17_MacBook_Pro.html

      Yes, it isn't made by Apple, but it works. I am sure they will come out with an updated design for the new 17" one soon too.

    131. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As can all new walkmans

    132. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I started buying music again as soon as they made it available without DRM. That's why the day I found out about the Amazon MP3 store I bought seven albums: good quality, convenient, and I actually own the files. The fact that the albums are almost all between $5 and $8.99 didn't hurt =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    133. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the heck do you use PCI cards for these days anyway?
      Mainly secondry network cards and storage controllers. I would also probablly use them if I ever did a setup with more than two monitors or two monitors on a motherboard with no AGP or PCIe slots.

      what functionality can be provided by a PCI(e) card that can't also be provided via USB or Firewire?
      Yeah, theese functions can technically be done over USB, but that means lower performance, higher prices and more mess on the desk.

      The average person doesn't care about expandability.
      I wonder how what proportion of "normal" people have a "geek" friend/colleague/family member they go to for advice on computer matters rather than just buying blindly.

      Sadly I don't think an ordinary desktop mac will happen in the near future since it would take away many mac users excuse for getting thier boss to buy them a mac pro.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    134. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      The iMac is like a notebook computer though. You can't really fault a laptop for having no upgrade path and no ability to play the next generation of games.

      I'd love to see the iMac turned into a gaming rig. Something which retains the sleek all-in-one form factor, but which comes with an easily user-accessible port for switching out graphics cards. But given the side of gaming graphics cards today, is that even feasible?

    135. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean 128Kb.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    136. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by afidel · · Score: 1

      AACPlus rocks, it's capable of producing listenable results at 56Kbit, quite an achievement.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    137. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by afidel · · Score: 1

      I'm 30 and can still hear to 19khz without issue and can even hear 22khz but with about an 8dB loss. This despite spending many weekends in front of the sub stack and concerts and raves.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    138. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I expected at least a press release about a new mini. I wonder if they are just trying to push people towards Laptops?

      I've read where laptops, for specifically Apple and generally for computers, are gaining market share. Looks like Apple's market share gains are in laptops.

      The desk top options don't appeal to me.

      The desktop options, those actually put on desks not beneath them, don't appeal to me either. The Mac Pro on the other hand does. I think that Apple is missing a big market for not having an expandable tower about 1/2 the price of the Mac Pro, even if only a mini tower.

      Falcon

    139. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I love the imac, I went the macbook pro route because I wanted portability. However my wife already has a huge 24 inch dell monitor. She wants to go mac, but doesn't need the extra cost of a notebook. A mac mini would be perfect for her. Of course with the mini's current stats it is a huge price gouge even by mac standards.

    140. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by cthulhu11 · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The things have USB and video ports for a reason. I have a co-worker who uses his MBP all the time with the lid closed hooked up to external KVM. Back when I was stuck with corporate-issue Dells (Latitude CPi A and now a C640 that IT won't even take back) I messed with port replicators and docks. The connectors were rather touchy and M$W98/NT didn't handle insertion/removal particularly well. Plugging in a keyboard, mouse (if yer one of those bizarre trackpad haters like my wife), video, power seperately takes maybe 6 extra seconds. Big whoop. As to the "wear and tear" in the response below -- wouldn't the massive dock connector itself be subject to the same? AFAIK the selling point of the magsafe power connector was the *safe* angle, disconnecting when yanked or tripped over instead of dragging an expensive computer violently to the floor. Plus of course it's pretty damned cool :D

    141. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      ...and they seem to have a hole in their product line between the mini and the Mac Pro

      Have a look at the iMac - it sits nicely in the gap between the two. Regarding expandability why do you need PCI slots? I used to think like you - and got a Mac Pro - because I was used to sticking in PCI cards for this and that but now everything is via USB or Firewire. There is no need to add SCSI cards, highspeed ethernet cards etc. unless you have a specialized need e.g. fibrechannel for disk servers, 10Gb ethernet etc. So far I have yet to stick a single PCI card into the machine and would have been far better off saving the money and buying an iMac with an external disk enclosure.

    142. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Never heard of dual displays? Put that 27" flatpanel to good use :)

    143. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Honestly, who uses wires anymore. When I get home my Macbook knows it- connects to my network, my mouse and keyboard. The only thing I need to plug in is the display.

    144. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Logical reason: RF.

    145. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the heck do you use PCI cards for these days anyway?

      Wife acceptance. My wife is much more willing to accept a media centre PC if it is contained within a single box that fits nicely (physically and visually) into the hifi/video equipment stack. Having half a dozen cables coming out of it to various external USB boxes is likely to get it banished to the basement.

    146. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you'll find out I was talking about my monitor. So far there are no wireless monitors. I have a 27" flatscreen, so downgrading to a 15" or even 17" laptop display is exceedingly subpar.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    147. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      More than not exclusive - AAC is the audio implementation of the MPEG-4 codec, meaning that is an MPEG standard. The offerings from Apple (AAC and H.264) were impressive enough to warrant the basis of the next generation ISO/IEC MPEG standard group.

      Check the official MPEG website if you don't believe me:
      http://www.m4if.org/mpeg4/

    148. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      Phil Schiller stated in the Keynote that once you bought a DRM-free track, you could put it on as many devices and computers as you own.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    149. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What the heck do you use PCI cards for these days anyway?

      To connect my SCSI gear - eg legacy tape drives to restore from (not much point in those backups if you cant get to the data). There are other custom cards (eg T1/E1 interface) that cost a fortune, and still work fine. Not to mention engineering specials.

      Some of us were not born yesterday, and have a huge legacy of "stuff". (I have dumped my reel-to-reel tapes and 8" floppies, (gave them to the museum) and all my pre-PCI interface cards(sent them to Africa, along with the 486's))

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    150. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The giant multi-hundred pin connector on a dock suffers wear and tear too.

      I just don't see the big deal. In a business situation, it means two things to plug in instead of one (plug in the monitor and keyboard, Apple keyboards have USB ports, and the mouse connects to one of those). No external speakers - my computer should be seen but not heard in the office, and if I need to hear stuff, I use headphones rather than inflict it on my colleagues. (I have the sound permanently muted on my work desktop already, I want sound off by default because websites sometimes unexpectedly make annoying sounds - like an ad that Slashdot carried a while back - don't know whose it was but it featured the sound of a slamming door). The expense of a dock simply isn't worth it to save the effort of having to plug one extra cable.

    151. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ya. that take time to plug all that in.

      If you have so mutch stuff you have to plug in at home, then get a USB HUB and plug all of it to that.
      Then you only need to plug in the HUB and the monitor

    152. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      number of IBM/Lenovo laptops with docking stations I've seen in my last two jobs, too numerous to count.

      Wow, so not even countably infinite, then! Your use of hyperbole is literally beyond belief :-)

      BTW: "never taken the world by storm" does not mean "are totally non existent". "Taken the world by storm" would mean docks being prominently displayed on most adverts for laptops, not buried in the options for a few corporate-oriented manufacturers. The ludicrous prices for Lenovo etc. docks suggest they only ever sell them to corporates who order them routinely.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    153. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      So banish it to the basement, turn it into a file server and run a thin client next to the TV. Mac Mini's are great for this BTW due to the Apple Remote, Bluetooth and small size and the ability to display 1080p (as opposed to the AppleTV which can't out of the box).

    154. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? I found that my performance increased significantly with the upgrade. I have a "Last Gen" white plastic Macbook (Not just the most recent generation, but also, literally, the last generation unless something changes) I bought about 6 month ago. WoW worked on it, but I often got strange graphics artifacts. Stuff would go blurry, letter would drop out of names, etc. It was still playable, but annoying. Searching online and talking to both Apple and Blizzard support convinced me that the problem was the cheap Intel video chipset and they'd get it fixed "someday". That day turned out to be Wrath of the Lich King release day. The game has been much smoother and nicer since release and I didn't change any settings. Granted I don't play at maximum everything, but I don't play at bare bottom settings either.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    155. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by brackishboy · · Score: 1

      Heck, this is why Apple swapped to the magnetic power plug! Why are the rest of the connections less important?

      They swapped to the magnetic power plug to prevent the problem of people tripping over the power cord causing the laptop to fly across the room.

      That feature has saved my mid-2007 Macbook's life twice in the last two days.

      I really must move that table from the middle to the edge of the room.

    156. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by slumberer · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you might find this monitor useful.

    157. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you'll find out I was talking about my monitor. So far there are no wireless monitors. I have a 27" flatscreen

      If you go back to the post you replied to he clearly states The only thing I need to plug in is the display. I know it was hard to pass up the opportunity to reiterate that you have a 27" flatscreen. You should really drop the pretense and post some specs beyond physical size so the pissing match can properly commence.

    158. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by MistrBlank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well they switched to the magnetic power adapter so that they could patent and trademark it and either prevent other manufacturers from making adapters or at least draw a licensing check from them if they do.

      Lets be fair, Apple may do some awesome things, but at the end of the day they do it for a paycheck (and yes I'm an apple fanboy with 2 (obsoleted) ipods, an iPhone and a Macbook).

    159. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      The word is "dock".

      Sorry, it bothers me that much despite your low /. id.

    160. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering how hard to remove that Intel GMA junk (or even soft enable-disable) and put a real GPU chip in it with a higher Mhz CPU.

      It was very advanced topic back in time (PPC based/mot and IBM involved) but we all know the PC and Mini ATX stuff. The cases, chips, mainboards are all in end user market.

      Back in time, it was "Stupid Freescale mainboard". Apple should be aware that we really know the x86 scene and there is no reason rather than incompetence not to ship a new Mini.

    161. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      What the heck do you use PCI cards for these days anyway?

      Bandwidth. Are we seriously having a PCI vs USB debate right now, on slashdot?

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    162. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      There are third party companies that make docks for Apple laptops. Bookendz is one that I can think of. Sit your laptop in it and two blocks of ports slide in from the sides. They work pretty well, actually.

    163. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you don't need PCI cards, don't mind paying the extra for laptop memory/hard disks, don't care about games, and don't care about expandability - why not get a laptop and have something even more portable?

      The average laptop is barely expandable at all ... yet we see laptop sales dominating the "home user" segment of the market.

      Yes, because it has the advantage of being portable. It doesn't logically follow to say that therefore, something that has the disadvantages of the laptops should also be good, when it has none of the advantages!

    164. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The iMac is like a notebook computer though. You can't really fault a laptop for having no upgrade path and no ability to play the next generation of games.

      You can't fault a notebook, because they're notebooks - i.e., small and portable. But I can't take an Imac with me and use it on the train. I mean, if you're saying that the performance of Mac desktops isn't that bad, because it's no worse than laptops, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement when we're talking about desktops...

    165. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      But it seems to me that complaining about AAC because of Apple is analogous to saying "I'm sticking with VHS tapes because not all of us can afford those new Sony DVD players".

      Who's complaining? People are just saying that they would prefer mp3, because their hardware doesn't support AAC. In fact, the OP wasn't even complaining - he'd simply say that he'd transcode it.

      If you want to compare to DVDs, are you telling me that you ditched your DVD collection and replaced it with Blu-ray as soon as it came out? And do you moan about people who still prefer to buy DVDs?

      And it's not like mp3 is obsolete, nor is the comparison to AAC comparable to VHS and DVD. It would be like preferring Mac or Linux software, because your computer can't run Windows - and there are plenty of people around here who do complain about that.

    166. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by dhuff · · Score: 1

      What sort of braindead, "can't read the documentation" moron encodes MP3s at 128 kbps CBR ? Heck, lame makes it easy to produce very listenable and reasonably well compressed music. Just add the "--preset standard" cmd line switch and you're good to go.

    167. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once DRM free songs were available to me in my area, I haven't pirated a single song that was available to buy and in some cases, even replaced my previously pirated copies with legally purchased copies. In fact, the vast majority of my music library now consists of legal downloads or rips from CDs I own.

      --
      By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
    168. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. The Mac Mini is one of the most environmentally friendly computers out there. It scores very high in terms of the there R's - reduce, reuse, recycle. It also uses a very small amount of electrical power relative to other desktops. In addition, inexpensive options like the Mini are really needed in bad economic times.

    169. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Hey Apple supports Windows and now that Netbooks are growing maybe Apple will decide it is worth the effort to support ITunes on Linux. I like the applications plus media model that ITunes has. Plus it is a nice resource of Podcasts as well. I can keep hoping Apple will make that leap. After all you don't want college students dumping their IPod for Sanza player now do we?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    170. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I gather from talking to Apple reps is that they see the Mac as always being a high end niche player. They want the Mac to be a premium brand.

      If you take that observation a step farther and factor in various design choices and marketing decisions by Apple, it seems to me that their strategy is geared towards a market where Linux takes over the low end while they get the high end and Microsoft is squeezed in the middle. They figure that they can't compete with Linux for the low end and shouldn't try. I think, if anything, Apple is surprised that Linux hasn't grabbed more market share already. An environment where there is significant market share for Linux at the low end would benefit Apple because it's easier to follow cross-platform standards between Linux and OS X than Windows and OS X.

    171. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, we thought out throughly before we started purchasing Macs for mobile users. The big thing (We thought at first) was the lack of docking support. First of all, it takes me 7 complete seconds to hook up my macbook every time I get to work... if you think 7 seconds to get started is too much time, then stop reading and move on to the next post. If you have a windows machine (Dell for example), and you dock, you still have to make sure it's well docked: Push it in, make sure it's seated properly... this takes 3 seconds, so we might even be talking about a 4 second difference here.

      One thing that helps me is having a Monitor with an USB hub. My office peripherals stay connnected to the monitor and I have 1 USB cable ready coming from the monitor to my laptop (time required for USB peripherals installation= 1 second)

      I could lower my setup time to 3 seconds, but that would mean I would have to have a wireless keyboard and mouse. Also, USB/wireless headphones and use a Wireless Network connection.

    172. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by sabre3999 · · Score: 1

      My Compaq M700 would disagree with your summation there. It's "business class" as you so put it, and almost a decade old now. Guess what? I've gone through consumer grade laptops fast, some of them don't even last 3 months (given it was a cheapo, but not all of them are...) I don't abuse them, they just seem to wear out with how much I use them. I still use that M700 every day for RDP and the like, and it's kept on trucking. It's all original except for a couple OS formats, and I've had nary a problem with it. The magnesium alloy (IIRC) casing might have something to do with that though.

      Also, the dock still works perfectly. Perhaps you meant crappy Dell business class, or newer business class. I've found the older stuff lived up to it's branding quite well. Of course, I can only say that for myself... YMMV etc etc.

    173. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by DeskLazer · · Score: 1

      eh, what's up, doc(k)?

    174. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      I was also hoping for a new Mini, but DRM free music is a big step. Now if they would only offer the option of downloading in a free/open codec. At least I can now convert the tunes to MP3 in iTunes, but I'm now working out which of my players will handle .m4a files 8)

    175. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Fiznarp · · Score: 1

      I have one of these docks and really enjoy it. I wanted to be able to share the same monitor and keyboard with a PC and could not find a good solution that would let me share the same bluetooth keyboard/mouse with two computers. So I went with a USB keyboard/mouse and a DVI/USB KVM.

    176. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Ius my computers for work, and I have two games console for games. My preferred macin is my Mac Mini, I also have an HP tablet (running openSuSE 11.1) and an old desktop as a server running openSuse 10.0) and an Acer Aspire One for real portability (Ubuntu 8.04).
      I'd love to upgrade my mini, but as I already have a 24" screen, and an Apple cordless KB and mouse, I don't need to spring for an iMac and I dont need a laptop, so a faster Mini would be my preferred machine, but a mini pro would be much better 8) The mini makes a great media centre though.

    177. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      My Apple Doc/laptop works fine.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    178. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by tofustew · · Score: 1
      I might point out that the new Apple laptops have ALL of their ports on one side, opposite the optical drive. The previous configuration has critical ports on opposite sides of the laptop and the optical drive on a third side - not ideal for docking. The new setup still gives you access to the optical drive when the laptop is docked.

      Not to mention those tapered edges would make it even easier to slide into a square hole...

    179. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Have you actually TRIED running Vista on a Sempron? Hell, have you tried running XP on one? Those are the biggest POS chips since Cyrix went out of business. Hell I had a guy give me one because after seeing how my old Celeron stomped the dog shit out of his Wimpy Sempy he just chunked and bought an Intel Dual Core.

      And as someone who has to work on home users boxes I can tell you that more often than not Vista sucks donkey balls. If you are lucky it is only 40% slower and 50% more annoying than XP. OEM drivers are more hit or miss than they were with WinME, even to this day, the GUI confuses the hell out of most home users, the extra bling bling gets in their way and makes it even slower, etc. Oh, and you know how MSFT and all the bloggers bragged about their disc thrashing integrated search? Guess what? I'd say a good 75%+ of home users NEVER use the crap. Why? Because that is not how home users work. They launch the app, like say Office, and find what they are looking for in the recent documents drop down, because frankly they HAVE NO CLUE as to where they saved anything or what they named it. Kinda hard to search when you don't know what to search FOR,huh?

      I am not saying this to cut anyone down, or to hurt any feelings. If you got Vista to work then I'm happy for you. But I have bought, run, tweaked, and repaired every single MSFT OS since Win3.1 and for me Vista was a giant POS. It ran like shit, it thrashed so much it killed a new 200GB drive, and for all its bloat it gave me nothing in return. If they would have kept WinFS maybe it would have been different. Having EVERY app have access to an API that gave them all killer search might have been worth it. But as a business user I want a low resource backwards compatible OS to do my work with. And the multimedia bling bling nightmare that is Vista sure as hell ain't built with business users in mind. If Apple released a midrange tower I would seriously think about switching. But the Mini is too wimpy and the Pro is too damned high. So sorry Apple, I guess my money just isn't good enough for you.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    180. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by cthellis · · Score: 1

      I'm running WoW on a TI-83, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about... ;-)

    181. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Just get a new vid card for your maOHWAITAHAHAHAH

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    182. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The nintendo DS doesn't natively support playing music of any kind but the stuff that comes with the game.

      If you don't mind hacking systems to do things they were never meant to do, then your list becomes somewhat bigger.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    183. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by pizzach · · Score: 1

      You're right. I think the wikipedia article might have actually been refering to the Nintendo DSi which does have built in aac support and will play them off of inserted SD cards. Too bad the DSi still hasn't launched globally yet.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    184. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by notime555+ · · Score: 1

      DRM Crack software-Daniusoft Digital Media Converter Pro is a perfect video converter. It is not only a video converter but also a DRM Protected video converter. Most important, its price is really reasonable. Look at its supported format: Input format: DRM audio and DRM video (WMA/WMV/M4A/M4B/M4P/M4V/ASF) Common audio and video formats: MP4, MPG, MPEG, 3GP, RM, RMVB, DAT, MOV, FLV, VOB, MP3, WAV, M4A, WMA High-definition video: M2TS, TP, TRP, TS, AVI Output format: Audio: MP3, M4A, AC3, AAC, WMA, WAV, OGG, and APE. Video: MP4, FLV, AVI, WMV, ASF, 3GP, 3G2, M4V, MPG, VOB. It is also very easy to use: Stpe 1:Download and install the DRM Removal Software. Run the software and click "Add..." button to load WMA or M4A, M4B, AAC, WMV, M4P, M4V, ASF files. Step 2: Choose output formats. If you want to convert protected audio files, please select "Convert audio to" list; If you want to convert protected video files, please select "Convert video to" list. Stpe 3: You can click "Settings" button to custom preference for output files, and Click "Settings" button bellow "Convert video to" list for protected video files.

    185. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other vendors make low-end desktops for half of what the Mac Mini costs, and those are actually upgradeable which keeps them out of Chinese e-waste landfills longer.

    186. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The home computer that does this is the iMac.

      While it is not upgradable in the same way that a tower is, it ticks *a lot* of the boxes for the typical home comouter user who is looking to buy a machine and is starting to look at other places than Windows.

      It's said all the time, but the slashdot crowd does not make up the bulk of the computer buying public. The iMac is a great platform for them - the bulk of the computer buying public do not upgrade them, they simply replace them with the newest models. The fact that they *were* upgradabe likely wasn't a selling point, it was just a side effect. If they did buy it with the upgrade path in mind, then they're not looking at Mac just yet - they're sticking with their old computer).

      Apple are not blind to the market at large - if they saw a profitable niche that they could exploit with their hardware then they'd go for it. As it is, they are shifting laptops by the ton, moving iMacs by slightly less than that, and they have the hyper overkill Mac Pro for the pro market that really does need the PCI-e expansion.

      The iMac itself comes with everything it needs, so an expansion slot would really just be wasted (and a esoteric PCI-e card that connects to your specific media system, for example, only applies to 0.1% of the potential buying public) - you have ethernet, firewire, usb, extra dvi port, wireless, webcam, bluetooth, optical and analogue audio in and out and an accessible RAM bay if you want to upgrade that. There's no need to add any extra function with expansion cards, and if you really need to, there's likely a USB or firewire version that attaches externally.

      I'm not doubting that the iMac us unsuitable for some customers who need expansion ability, just that fir the vast number of people, it suits just fine.

  2. So,no more DRM by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    What are people going to whine about now?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:So,no more DRM by k_187 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tiered Pricing.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:So,no more DRM by Weeksauce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If people hadn't wined, would they still have done it?

      --
      An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
    3. Re:So,no more DRM by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      Upgrading their current drm-laden songs.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    4. Re:So,no more DRM by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah... but those people who claimed $0.99 was too expensive and songs shouldn't cost more than $0.70 will need a new excuse.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:So,no more DRM by noc007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No doubt. Trade one PITA for another.

      It'd be nice if one could upgrade their existing purchased DRM'd songs for the non-DRM.

      No I didn't RTFM or watch the keynote.

    6. Re:So,no more DRM by iretch · · Score: 1

      My guess is the vast majority of songs will now be sold at the $1.29 price point, and only indie bands hoping to break through will be reduced in price.

    7. Re:So,no more DRM by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since this was his goal from the beginning, I would say yes.
      It costs money to do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "What are people going to whine about now?"

      That they aren't selling them without DRM AND in a lossless format?

      Hey..when they do that...I'm sold, and will buy my first online music purchase!!

      They mentioned higher quality, but, I did not see they say lossless qualities would be offered.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:So,no more DRM by k_187 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can upgrade, but apparently not for free. At least I couldn't yet. Not everything I've bought from there wasn't listed as eligible yet however. So it might not be completely implemented yet.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    10. Re:So,no more DRM by j-beda · · Score: 5, Informative
      "prices as low as 69c" means 10% at that price, the majority of selling tracks at $2.50

      The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29."

      This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall, and that there will be no $2.50 tracks.

    11. Re:So,no more DRM by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple sold out.

      The labels wanted tiered (or really, higher) pricing and a larger cut of revenue for anything downloaded via cellular; Apple wouldn't initially give in and they were too big & powerful for the labels to simply ignore. So the labels propped up Amazon's store by allowing them to sell everything DRM free and taking a smaller cut of revenue than from Apple, and refused Apple the same rights. This was to force Apple's hand; to either risk being driven out of business, or to "play" with the labels.

      Apple could have taken the correct option and continued to hold out for fair treatment and reasonable pro-consumer policies. Instead they sold out. The iTunes Music Store is now just yet another front for the labels, controlled by the labels.

      And all their other fronts (e.g. Amazon and WalMart) will quickly adopt the same policies now that the labels have no reason to continue offering them favorable terms.

    12. Re:So,no more DRM by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where do you7 get 2.50 from. .69, .99, 1.29
      Probably based on download popularity. That's just a guess.

      However you do accidentally make another point: People will continue to make shit up so they can whine.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:So,no more DRM by FangVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      It'd be nice if one could upgrade their existing purchased DRM'd songs for the non-DRM.

      According to the keynote, this will be easily done. When they went DRM-free for the EMI catalog, iTunes offered an option to pay the (then) 30 cent price difference per track and upgrade all songs that you had previously bought.

    14. Re:So,no more DRM by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's great to see competition in the market for DRM-free music. Until now, the only DRM-free option with a comprehensive catalog was Amazon. I've been using Amazon for a while, and there are definitely some significant pros and cons:

      1. Con: You can't use it if you're outside the U.S.
      2. Pro: I find it much easier to use than iTunes. YMMV.
      3. Con: The only format is MP3, no option for less lossy formats.
      4. Con: Although I was able to help my daughter figure out how to buy MP3s on Amazon via her Linux box and put them on her iPod, it was a real pain.
      5. Unfortunately Amazon makes you use special software if you want to download an entire album at the album price (which is cheaper than buying the individual tracks). But fortunately they explicitly support Linux. But unfortunately their Linux support sucks, and if you call with a problem, you get a tech support person in India who insists that Amazon's own web page lies, and there's no support for any browser other than IE. But fortunately there's third-party software called clamz that works better than the software Amazon supplies.

      It will be interesting to see if the advent of competition encourages both Apple and Amazon to improve.

    15. Re:So,no more DRM by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html [apple.com] claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29." This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall.

    16. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lowest price is $0.69. You can bet that many will be well above $0.99 that they are now.

    17. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I can't tell. Was this post serious, or supposed to be a joke about how people will make any excuse to continue pirating music?

    18. Re:So,no more DRM by russotto · · Score: 1

      My guess is the vast majority of songs will now be sold at the $1.29 price point, and only indie bands hoping to break through will be reduced in price.

      If the established labels do that, it is a win for the indie bands.

      (BTW, how much you want to bet that the established labels have the contracts written such that royalties paid to performers on the 69 cent songs drop, but royalties paid to performers on the $1.29 songs don't increase)

    19. Re:So,no more DRM by FangVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "prices as low as 69c" means 10% at that price, the majority of selling tracks at $2.50
      There'll be plenty to whine about.

      There will be three prices: $.69, $.99, and $1.29.
      According to the keynote, there will be more tracks priced at $.69 than at $1.29.

    20. Re:So,no more DRM by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh, who cares? This isn't about Apple or Amazon. This is about the labels being dragged, kicking and screaming though they are, into the 21st century.

      This was a fairly nice development. Let's not cloud it with pointless conspiracies.

      BTW, Apple, by definition, can't "sell out". Thanks for playing though.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    21. Re:So,no more DRM by k_187 · · Score: 1

      What the GP and what the parent are claiming are both true. I'd imagine that there is much more "obscure" music available than popular music. The stuff that the masses are buying will be $1.29 "Long Tail" stuff will be $.69

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    22. Re:So,no more DRM by ameyer17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And all their other fronts (e.g. Amazon and WalMart) will quickly adopt the same policies now that the labels have no reason to continue offering them favorable terms.

      Perhaps not. I don't think they want any one online music store to have a big enough market share where the retailer can more or less dictate the terms and conditions of online music sales. By continuing to offer favorable terms to Amazon, WalMart*, and friends, they can potentially keep iTunes from having the monopoly they used to.
      On the other hand, you're probably right.

    23. Re:So,no more DRM by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Being dined, but not wined, is usually not enough to secure a ticket to the pantsal region.

    24. Re:So,no more DRM by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      And when they dropped the extra 30 cents, they started doing it for free.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    25. Re:So,no more DRM by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Meh. People will probably still whine about Apple's evil proprietary AAC format, which actually isn't Apple's format (hint: AAC doesn't stand for Apple Audio Codec). And they're whine (correctly) about iTunes TV shows having DRM, Apple keeping tight control of iPhone application distribution, etc.

      So about the same as usual-- a mix of valid and stupid complaints.

    26. Re:So,no more DRM by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sold out? By offering tiered pricing? Really?

      In the real world, everything has different prices depending on demand. The "Everything should be 99c" thing may simplify things, but it's hardly fair, either to the labels or to us. Apple was trying to force both the record labels and customers to do something completely ridiculous in the name of simplicity, and consider "The Birdie Song" to have the same value as "Bohemian Rhapsody".

      I appreciate like most of Slashdot you have a hate-on for the labels, and therefore consider anything the labels want to do as wrong, but Apple was on the wrong side here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:So,no more DRM by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple could have taken the correct option and continued to hold out for fair treatment and reasonable pro-consumer policies. Instead they sold out. The iTunes Music Store is now just yet another front for the labels, controlled by the labels.

      Maybe, maybe not. Do you think the labels would want DRM-free music? Doubtful. My guess is that amazon only got the deal they did without DRM because Apple was doing so well and wouldn't play ball on the tiered pricing. What if the labels only could concede DRM-free music if Apple gave in on the tiered pricing? It's not an unequivocal victory but if I had to choose I'd much rather have tiered pricing and DRM-free music than DRM-ed music and non-tiered pricing. Now if they'd just let me get the songs off my ipod using iTunes and not having to resort to third party software I'll be happy.

      I haven't bought a single song from the iTunes music store because of DRM, I might actually consider it now.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    28. Re:So,no more DRM by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Tiered Pricing.

      True, one can bitch about that, but I'm wondering about how the tiers will be set up. Think about the possibility - the songs they like to push on the public are quite often the crappy ones, so will they price those higher because those are the ones they want to promote, and thus the other stuff (that's actually more likely to be good) will be cheaper? Something to hope for, anyway.

      No new Mac Mini, though, that kinda hurt...

    29. Re:So,no more DRM by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Man, Apple really sold out to get all the DRM removed from their music. What rat bastards! It cannot possibly be the case that the music industry wanted more money for more rights and Apple yielded.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    30. Re:So,no more DRM by cgenman · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as lossless analog to digital conversion. 256 Kbps lossy might still be better than lossless if the source material is better.

    31. Re:So,no more DRM by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      Wait, can't this be done in a simple update? I've been following the anti-drm tirades here on slashdot for years and it seems the drm-laden songs are checked in iTunes for authorization before they'll play on a PC/Mac. Wouldn't it be easy to put out an iTunes upgrade that just ignores that whole process (no longer checks for authorization), or is there something else going on technically that I'm unaware of?

      Also, won't this FINALLY kill the (mostly) lame argument that this has all been some sort of insidious Apple lock-in strategy? (I can hear it now...but now that they have a near monopoly on digital music players, they can afford to go DRM-free..blah blah blah).

    32. Re:So,no more DRM by slyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The _highest_ price is $1.29, and they claim "more songs will be $0.69 than will be $1.29".

      Either way with DRM free music the consumer benefits.

    33. Re:So,no more DRM by j-beda · · Score: 1
      "Wait, can't this be done in a simple update?"

      I do not think it is that easy - there is some encryption going on otherwise the "hackers" would have a much easier time "breaking" the DRM and the DRM-free tracks are also at double the bitrate of the DRM-encumbered tracks, so a new download is needed. Finally, there are the international issues to work out - iTunes has different agreements worldwide with different labels.

    34. Re:So,no more DRM by PIBM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that recent stats. show that less than 10% of the full catalog make 90% of the sale volume, price those at 1.29, 70% at 0.99 and the remaining 20% at 0.69 just to show some goodwill, and everyone will pay an higher price.

      You will pay more, unless you really are into those rather odd songs.. ;)

    35. Re:So,no more DRM by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      A bazillion downloads a day (hyperbole mine) will not allow for lossless formats. Most ears can't tell either. (Engineering--tradeoffs--that usual conversation here)

    36. Re:So,no more DRM by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      as far as I can tell there is still DRM on movies, I imagine that will be the next thing to be complained about

    37. Re:So,no more DRM by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Modifying iTunes wouldn't help somebody either convert it to MP3 or drop it on a non-iPod player that may support AAC but not Apple's DRM on top.

    38. Re:So,no more DRM by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I don't think this will work in the long run. WalMart sells most of their music for them. They will give the labels problems if Apple doesn't. People that want to make new music promote it yourself. I'll look for it and buy that. I already own and have made copies of the old stuff the labels are trying to resell again and again. No more tricks. I'm not playing their games no more. I wont buy it, listen to it, or steal it. I'll just go for the independents. Their stuff sounds better now anyhow.

    39. Re:So,no more DRM by j-beda · · Score: 2
      "Believe everything you read in press releases, do you?"

      No, but if we're all just going to pull stuff out of our ass, what's the point?

      If someone wants to cite a consistent pattern of iTunes announcements that were later changed, I would be interested in seeing it. It has been my memory that pretty much everything that Apple has announced for the iTunes store has taken place - in the time frame predicted.

    40. Re:So,no more DRM by pohl · · Score: 1

      According to PUA literature, neither form of supplication is a pre-requisite access to the nether-regions.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    41. Re:So,no more DRM by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as lossless.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    42. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So,no more DRM... What are people going to whine about now?

      Embedded watermarks?

    43. Re:So,no more DRM by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. Do you think the labels would want DRM-free music? Doubtful

      Clearly not, but having DRM was a mistake for them in the first place. They forced DRM, and then they watched everyone else fall to Apple. DRM was a double-edged sword; it could stop at least some file sharing, but it locked people to Apple. And the last thing the labels want is people locked to Apple, who has been spending the last 6 years dictating to the labels how things would be priced and organized. There's a number of stories here about how tenuous the Apple/label relationship was because the labels couldn't simply boss Apple around.

      The labels want DRM, but they don't want people tied to Apple, so they have to pick the lesser of two evils here. Don't think they've learned their lesson because they have not, they simply made a choice that has some benefit to us (and more benefit to them in the long run).

      The only acceptable outcome for consumers is DRM-free music and fixed pricing; price discrimination is no more a consumer-friendly position than DRM was, and unlike DRM we'll never be able to make it go away. You can't buy something and the un-price discriminate it.

      Apple traded one policy for a worse one.

    44. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the real world, everything has different prices depending on demand.

      In the real world, products are both rivalrous and excludable. Downloaded music is neither.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    45. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Sorry, I can't tell. Was this post serious, or supposed to be a joke about how people will make any excuse to continue pirating music?"

      No..it was serious, but, not about pirating music.

      I refuse to buy music online, due to 2 things...DRM (which they seem to be taking away), and the fact they don't sell it in a lossless format that is at least as good as CD quality. If they sold the new DRM-less songs in ACC Lossless, or FLAC...I'd buy them.

      Until then...well, I'll just buy CD's like normal I guess.

      I have a GOOD stereo for home use, and the difference is apparent, so, I'd rather have as good a quality recording as I can get for home, and I'll rip it to lesser quality for environments that are bad to begin with (car, gym...most any time I have a mobile player with me). I even like fairly high quality on my iPod tho...last year I bought some Shure SE530's...and man, those are some nice earphones...I've been hearing some quality differences in mp3's that I've ripped over the years at different qualities and different encoders...when I get time, I may rerip some of the poorer quality ones I'm hearing now.

      But, no...this isn't for piracy...just my attitude for purchasing.

      These days...bandwidth shouldn't be that much of a concern for lossy vs lossless downloads.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There is no such thing as lossless analog to digital conversion. 256 Kbps lossy might still be better than lossless if the source material is better"

      Ok, to make it simpler.

      Sell me at least CD quality music online, with no DRM, and I'll get in line to buy online. That is my request from Apple or any other online music store.

      Shy of that, I have no interest in buying music online.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    47. Re:So,no more DRM by Peregr1n · · Score: 1

      Tiered Pricing.

      Maybe not... I know it's a very different market, but look at the iPhone App store. IIRC 69c is the lowest possible price for an app (apart from free). Most apps started way higher, but quickly went as cheap as possible when they realised that's what the market wanted.
      I don't think many songs will stay high for long... and the expensive ones will be the brand new, manufactured pap that serious music fans won't be buying anyway.

    48. Re:So,no more DRM by deathsaurus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty much the same way they got the "2 million DRM-free songs" benchmark before today: the "karaoke version" of every song.

    49. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just want to make the point that Bohemian Rhapsody should be free, considering it entered the moral public domain in 2003 (released in 1975, 28 year copyright term). It's high time our community codified our disdain for perpetual copyright by insisting on a moral public domain.

      The Birdie Song (I had to look it up) was released in 1981, so we moral people should continue to pay for it (or better, not listen to it) until sometime later this year on the anniversary of the release date.

    50. Re:So,no more DRM by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      How is selling different songs at different prices price discrimination? Go to a record store, and different CD's sell for different prices all of the time. That no hit wonder? $7.99. That chart topper? $14.99

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    51. Re:So,no more DRM by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      The only thing sadder than the apple-fanboy is the anti-apple-fanboi. Really, get over yourself and get out more.

    52. Re:So,no more DRM by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i would say serious.. i can't stand lossy encoding when it comes to soloist's and clasical music.. i only buy music from places that let me download either the wav or flac versions

      http://www.magnatunes.com/ is a good one - all indy for the most part and alot of very good stuff

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    53. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    54. Re:So,no more DRM by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Isn't the DRM cracked anyway so you can just make them DRM-free yourself?

    55. Re:So,no more DRM by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a smart business plan. Charge more for the things people really want and charge less for the stuff people only slightly want for more profit on both the things people really want and slightly want.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    56. Re:So,no more DRM by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      The fact they are charging a 50$ premium for a matte finish on their display on top of an already overpriced laptop. What a crock.

      Sorry not a Mac fan.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    57. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I think most of us here claim not to listen to that 10% of most-popular music. I definitely make that claim.

    58. Re:So,no more DRM by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      This doesn't mean the price is now 69 cents. That's the lowest price. Not the highest price..

    59. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No, you won't. You'll think up some other excuse.

      What do you even mean by "lossless"? Do you mean analog? You want to download cassette tapes or something? All binary formats are lossy. For that matter, so are all analog formats. The standard is not "lossy vs lossless" but "does it sound good". Do high-bitrate MP3s or AACs not sound good to you? If not, then good lord man, get off of Slashdot and begin your career as one of those "golden ear" people.

      By the way, it's perfectly fine not to buy music online. I usually don't. I like to buy CDs and encode them myself. But it's a petty and untenable claim to carp about sound loss.

    60. Re:So,no more DRM by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Probably because most music available is really old stuff which has been around forever, big news?

    61. Re:So,no more DRM by Omestes · · Score: 1

      You can. I just checked the iTMS, and it offered to "upgrade" my 3 albums of purchased music for $6.30. It says 30% of the album price, 30c a song, or 60c for a music video.

      Still a rip. But nice to have the option. I might have to do it, I'm out of iTunes installs, and can't deauthorize anything since all those computers are dead/recycled.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    62. Re:So,no more DRM by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's about what I'd expect. Karaoke songs, cover bands, independent bar bands, etc, will all probably have their stuff at $0.69. There's no shortage of that stuff on iTunes. The really old (but still not major) mainstream songs will likely be $0.99.

      Everything with a bit of popularity and all the new released I'll bet will be $1.29.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    63. Re:So,no more DRM by 0prime · · Score: 1

      Will those $0.69 primarily be the karaoke tracks?

      --
      I am not a *blank*, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
    64. Re:So,no more DRM by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Lets put some better numbers =)

      Lets say that we use 90% of the sale volume ( ~10% of the songs) at 1.29, then the next 5% of the sale volume at 0.99 (let's guesstimate 20% of the songs) and a big 70% (remaining sales) at 0.69.

      That would bring the average price of sale to 1.245 while the average price of the songs would be down to 0.81.

    65. Re:So,no more DRM by 0prime · · Score: 1

      This makes a lot of sense, especially in a supply limited environment where one can't simply make an additional copy of the product at little to no cost.

      --
      I am not a *blank*, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
    66. Re:So,no more DRM by mister+boo · · Score: 1

      You can use the De-Authorize all option in your account. Then just re-authorize your main PC. 4 more to go without paying for an upgrade. The option is only available if you are on the last authorization.

    67. Re:So,no more DRM by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Why? They are both songs. It really comes down to a matter of taste as far as value goes. You can not claim any scarcity since you can make as many copies of one as the other. Popularity? Well shouldn't that be it's own reward. More people like it then more people buy it so you make more money from it.

      The only reason that they are doing this is because they can. From what I have seen though the songs are priced based on age which isn't that bad. There is a lot more old songs I like than new ones.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    68. Re:So,no more DRM by interploy · · Score: 1

      So, what happens to all the music people already bought? Will Apple auto-magically convert it to DRM-free with an iTunes update?

    69. Re:So,no more DRM by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    70. Re:So,no more DRM by jcr · · Score: 1

      I might have to do it, I'm out of iTunes installs, and can't deauthorize anything since all those computers are dead/recycled.

      Yes you can.

      IIRC, you can only do this once a year or so.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    71. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain how the labels want a "larger cut of revenue" of the songs. It's the labels songs to begin with. Why would Apple or Amazon get a very big cut of the cake, they are simply retailers. Wouldn't it feel fair to you if you bought a new car and the car dealer didn't get 40% of your money.

      Pro consumer is if the retailer gets as close to zero as possible to sustain the business. It's not when Apple gets as much money as possible from selling someone elses goods.

    72. Re:So,no more DRM by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Why? They're both 2-3MB data files that can be duplicated an infinite number of times and neither costs more or less to host or provide. Variable pricing is a result of Demand AS WELL AS Supply. Since there is no limit here on supply, basing pricing purely on demand is completely asinine.

      If anything, more popular songs should be LESS expensive since the overhead operating costs for distributing those songs is lower on a per-copy basis.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    73. Re:So,no more DRM by revlayle · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Also, I don't believe all slashdot posts, either

    74. Re:So,no more DRM by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    75. Re:So,no more DRM by Smitty825 · · Score: 1

      How about DRM on the movies/tv shows that Apple sells?

      --

      Doh!
    76. Re:So,no more DRM by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      In the real world, everything has different prices depending on demand.

      Well you really got that one wrong! In the real world, prices are set by supply and demand, and supply of digital content is set arbitrarily by the copyright holder. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    77. Re:So,no more DRM by Sciros · · Score: 2, Informative

      with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29

      The majority of songs are crap as opposed to not crap, so that's not surprising nor encouraging.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    78. Re:So,no more DRM by Fulg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm out of iTunes installs, and can't deauthorize anything since all those computers are dead/recycled.

      When you're in that position, there should be an option in iTunes to deauthorize all computers. Have a look here and here for more details on the exact procedure. Once you're done, just re-authorize your current computer(s).

      I haven't had to do this yet but I may have to soon, since even an OS reinstall on the same machine is counted against you.

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    79. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is 28 years moral? When I write software (I would say, every much as artistic a work as a studio recording), I don't get any royalties. I've worked on systems that make tens of thousands of dollars a day and required minor supervision. Should I be receive royalties for this system for ±28 years?

    80. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, in the real world there is also scarcity of physical material and significant energy investment in manufacture and replication that drives the whole supply/demand thing.

    81. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to talk about the moral public domain, shouldn't it have become that way in 1991 with the death of the song's author? This wouldn't apply to the recording since other band members are still alive, but would allow bands to cover the song royalty-free.

    82. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What the hell? Where's your evidence for this accusation? The DRM-free songs were all the songs in the EMI stable, as EMI was the only major label to agree to go DRM-free at that time.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    83. Re:So,no more DRM by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      Since this was his goal from the beginning, I would say yes.

      That's speculation. He stated that this was his goal only after the public outcry had spilled over into governments demanding that Apple license it's DRM to third parties.

    84. Re:So,no more DRM by SBrach · · Score: 1

      You can only do this once a year, fyi. After that you have to E-mail itunes support and ask them to do it for you.

    85. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Moral public domain? I'm not sure what this means. Queen, through talent and hard work, created Bohemian Rhapsody. "The public" did nothing to contribute to this, aside from existing, which I suspect they'd do whether Queen made music or not. Why is there some expectation that you should now get Queens work for free, just because it's getting old, and how is this an issue of morality? If you don't like paying for music, learn to play and compose your own, nobody is stopping you. If you want music that's been created by somebody else though, perhaps you should be prepared to pay them for it.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    86. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You really think that Apple are going to announce very specific pricing, and then turn around and set completely different prices? That would be a PR nightmare. If they were going to do something like charge $2.50, they would simply not announce specific pricing in the press release.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    87. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Average price will. Average price of anything you would actually want to download don't.

      Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what you want to download. Different people have different tastes. Anyway, rather than whining about a hypothetical, why don't you just go and look for yourself, and see if the price of what you want to download has gone up, down, or stayed the same?

      There's a lot of crap on there I wouldn't pay for.

      Wow, who would have thought that in a music store with millions of songs, some people don't want to buy all of them? That's nothing like... every other music store in existence.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    88. Re:So,no more DRM by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Sorry not a Mac fan.

      No, I think you're just a closet fan that wished you could have their stuff. For example, I'm not a Britney Spears fan. If she charged $800 for tickets to her shows I wouldn't complain. Why? Because I'm not a fan and have no desire to see her shows. I'm not a fan of the PS3. I don't complain that it is too expensive. However, I am a fan of nice monitors, and I do complain about how expensive the Dell 3007WFP is. I would very much like that monitor, but I can't afford it, so I complain about its price.

      See, when you don't care for something, you don't care for how much it costs. If you're complaining about the cost, it means you want it, but wish it was less costly.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    89. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      ...I've been hearing some quality differences in mp3's that I've ripped over the years at different qualities and different encoders...when I get time, I may rerip some of the poorer quality ones I'm hearing now.

      Did you miss the part about them being 256kbps AAC files? You get better reproduction than MP3 at the same bitrates, and at 256kbps, it's basically indistinguishable from lossless - unless you're being a wanky "audiophile" who claims to hear things that really aren't there.

      Do a blind A/B between a CD and well-encoded 256k AAC, and I bet you wouldn't be able to pick the encoded one.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    90. Re:So,no more DRM by coaxial · · Score: 1

      You're analysis made sense right up until you said that Apple was at risk of being driven out of the music download business. That's complete hogwash. There's iTMS has 70% of the WORLDWIDE marketshare of digital downloads. That means that there's effectively no second, third, or even fourth place. Also, there's little evidence that on a whole users are clamoring for DRM free files. Sure, they'd rather have it than not all things being equal, but that doesn't mean they're going out of their way for DRM free.

      Also, you completely lost me when you said that Apple wasn't pursuing "reasonable pro-consumer policies" by offering DRM free files. I would have thought enabling competition and true "play anywhere" files would be the ultimate in pro-consumer policies, but apparently I'm mistaken. Apparently DRM laden files is where it's at. Who knew?

    91. Re:So,no more DRM by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Fine, you can accept $1.29 for the latest hits from Apple, but I'll stick with Amazon, where the top 100 tracks are 79 cents.

    92. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, things have different prices depending on demand because of limitations in supply. There are no supply limitations for downloads. This is really about using a monopoly to manipulate perceptions about what is valuable and what is not.

    93. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Do a blind A/B between a CD and well-encoded 256k AAC, and I bet you wouldn't be able to pick the encoded one."

      I have a pretty high end stereo for home usage....why not play the best possible source on it? Do people not want to occasionally upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray for their HDTVs?

      I've done tests....and friends and I could tell the differences....

      I'd just rather by my music in the best form possible..to play on the good systems I have...and then let ME degrade them to mp3 or whatever, for the poorer listening environments I have like the iPod in the car or gym.

      Some of us do appreciate good sound, and I've been building my home stereo since I was about 12 and heard my first McIntosh tube amp on a pair of Klipschorns.

      I don't have the MC yet.....I have a decware SET amp that I really love...but, I do have the K-Horns....and those puppies do put out some good sound, and you can hear differences in recordings. At this point for home stereo...I prefer to rip my CD's to flac....and play through the stereo.

      No..I don't wear the Audiophile moniker, but, I also don't mind spending good money where I get a good perceived value. And, I've always valued high end audio since I was a kid.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    94. Re:So,no more DRM by Xest · · Score: 1

      The average price of what though? Every song or songs that matter?

      Let's face it, the $0.69 stuff is going to be the tracks that are space fillers on albums, the tracks no one wants anyway.

      The tracks everyone wants will be $1.29.

      The music industry's profits are clearly going to increase here else they wouldn't have bothered. Effectively, the music industry has said "We'll allow removal of DRM, if you pay us more". This is somewhat confirmed rather worryingly in the following article on this by the BBC. I'm not sure what the quotes near the bottom are referring to but it almost sounds like the $0.69 tracks will still have DRM and you'll have to pay $1.29 to remove it. I hope that's not the case and the comments are mere speculation but it really wouldn't suprise me.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7813527.stm

      I think you're right in that the average price of a track should fall, but not that the average cost to the end user will fall because again, the stuff people actually buy will go up and the stuff they don't will go down.

    95. Re:So,no more DRM by chihowa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Queen, through talent and hard work, created Bohemian Rhapsody. "The public" did nothing to contribute to this, aside from existing, which I suspect they'd do whether Queen made music or not.

      What the public did was allow Queen to have exclusive rights to the song for a finite amount if time. If Queen was so intent on limiting others' use of the song, they should have kept it to themselves. It's not like the monopoly granted by copyright is somehow the natural state of things. The public exchanged copyright protection of the work for unfettered access to the work one it started "getting old". Bohemian Rhapsody is now effectively a part of our culture and Queen was payed an enormous sum of money and fame in exchange for it.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    96. Re:So,no more DRM by alexhs · · Score: 1

      I looked it up too, and it's actually way older, you're thinking about a more recent adaptation from the Tweets (I guess you're a UK citizen ?)

      From wikipedia : The "Chicken Dance" is an oom-pah song composed by Swiss accordion (Handharmonika) player Werner Thomas from Davos, Switzerland in the 1950s

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    97. Re:So,no more DRM by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      "I don't think this will work in the long run. WalMart sells most of their music for them. "

      Not anymore. iTMS sells more than Walmart as of some time last year.

    98. Re:So,no more DRM by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's speculation.

      But it's informed speculation. Apple has always treated the iTunes store as a loss leader (although they do make a small profit from it) so they have no need or desire to maintain DRM on their end. The iPod is their cash cow, not the store.

    99. Re:So,no more DRM by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Uh, they got DRM free music. How's that selling out? If they traded the option for the labels to add an extra 30 cents, well, that's a pretty good trade. Particularly if people exercise their right to vote with their wallets and the new $1.29 price point doesn't sell well.

    100. Re:So,no more DRM by coaxial · · Score: 1

      In the real world, everything has different prices depending on demand. The "Everything should be 99c" thing may simplify things, but it's hardly fair, either to the labels or to us.

      Ahh, but here's your mistake. You're applying Supply and Demand rules to a commodity that has effectively infinite supply. Prices go up with demand as a result of scarcity. The market is essentially an auction in that respect. In the download world, the cost isn't the commodity being sold, but rather the storefront itself. iTMS costs the same to run whether it's selling a million songs, or only a single song.

    101. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, if people hadn't used iTunes in Wine, therefore showing their support, they may not have done it

    102. Re:So,no more DRM by prockcore · · Score: 1

      In the real world, prices are set by supply and demand, and supply of digital content is set arbitrarily by the copyright holder. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

      So because supply is infinite, then demand doesn't matter at all?

      Seems to me that it matters just as much as it ever did. If I make a song that doesn't appeal to the majority of people, I'd like to set the price to be less than 99 cents to entice more purchases.

      As a consumer, I'll pay more for better songs.

    103. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Songs shouldn't cost more than $0.68

    104. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      Paying for Apple to do it has the advantage of being legal under current copyright laws. Though you may want to wait a week or two to make sure they remove the bugs from the system.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    105. Re:So,no more DRM by norminator · · Score: 1

      I didn't hear a lot of specifics on the pricing, but one of the slides from the liveblogs of the keynote made it look like any tracks over 6 years old would be 69 cents... Now I think that's pretty cool because a lot of the music I want is older than 6 years. I think it all works like this (but I could be wrong):

      $1.29: Premium tracks (singles)
      $0.99: Regular tracks less than 6 years old
      $0.69: Older tracks

      In my mind, that's a win for customers in general. All tracks go DRM-free, many stay the same price, and most go down in price, while a few newer songs go up in price.

    106. Re:So,no more DRM by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      people wined? man, i could never get iTunes to work with wine.

    107. Re:So,no more DRM by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Again, if you are ripping a 256Kbps lossy file from a 192 khz DVD-A quality master, you might be getting a resultant signal that's *closer* to the original than CD quality. I'm not saying that's what is happening, I'm just saying that you can't dismiss all lossy files as worse than lossless files when the original source fidelity is unknown.

      Until you've listened to both, do you know that what Apple is selling is lower than CD quality?

    108. Re:So,no more DRM by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and the DRM on iTunes ensured that you *must* use it with an iPod. That's why they never cared about profits from the itunes store. It's telling then that the removal of DRM goes hand-in-hand with a price hike (oops, I mean't "tiered pricing"). I'd wager that Apple gets a larger cut of the profits on the tracks now.

    109. Re:So,no more DRM by Atario · · Score: 1

      See, this opens up the whole can of worms of what it means for supply and demand when supply is effectively infinite. You say copies of popular stuff should cost more, but why? Are they harder to obtain than copies of the less popular stuff? Are there fewer of them?

      Also, consider this: usually, when something is very popular, lots more of it is produced, which generally decreases the marginal cost of producing each one, and thus the final price charged for each one -- "economy of scale", as they say. This scenario turns that on its head: the more they make, the more they charge for each one. This is despite the fact that the marginal cost of "producing each one" (servicing a download) is more or less zero, regardless of the quantity produced.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    110. Re:So,no more DRM by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Why don't you sell it under terms that grant you royalties rather than sell it for a single rate? If you own the copyright, you can determine the distribution and that means you can negotiate a contract. That contract negotiation is where things like royalties come from.

    111. Re:So,no more DRM by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Everything with a bit of popularity and all the new released I'll bet will be $1.29.

      Great! I hate popular songs and new releases. Now I have one more reason to steer clear of them.

    112. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I've done tests....and friends and I could tell the differences....

      Really? You've done double-blind tests? You've already tested against Apple's 256kbps AACs? I kind of doubt it.

      I'd just rather by my music in the best form possible..to play on the good systems I have...and then let ME degrade them to mp3 or whatever, for the poorer listening environments I have like the iPod in the car or gym.

      But you mentioned buy audio CDs. If you really only buy the "best form possible", wouldn't you be using SACD or studio master tapes or something? Why is CD good enough for your golden ears?

      Some of us do appreciate good sound, and I've been building my home stereo since I was about 12 and heard my first McIntosh tube amp on a pair of Klipschorns.

      As do I. I've even designed and built my own speaker systems. But that doesn't mean I kid myself about hearing differences that have no noticeable affect on the listening experience.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    113. Re:So,no more DRM by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Meh, who cares? This isn't about Apple or Amazon. This is about the labels being dragged, kicking and screaming though they are, into the 21st century.

      Surely you mean the 20th century. I bought my first DRM-free CD in 1988. For digital music, the 21st century has kind of sucked compared to the 20th. In the 20th century, things "just worked." Lack of DRM is the norm, and maybe we're heading back to that.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    114. Re:So,no more DRM by fr4nk · · Score: 1

      $0.640 should be enough for every song.

    115. Re:So,no more DRM by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      In the real world, some bands charge $5 for their CD and some charge as high as $12. Variation in pricing is normal and no big deal, even when the RIAA isn't involved at all.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    116. Re:So,no more DRM by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      g. Now if they'd just let me get the songs off my ipod using iTunes and not having to resort to third party software I'll be happy.

      While I agree with you that this is a nuisance, what's wrong with 3rd party software? As a OS X developer I don't feel my work is inherently inferior to Apple's. There are many examples where 3rd party software is way superior to Apple's own equivalent, e.g. The Finder.

    117. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No, no, you're wrong. The public indeed did a lot to contribute to the song. Have you noticed that the song lyrics are written in English? Luckily the English language is in the public domain, or else Queen would owe William the Conqueror (or whoever) royalties. Have you noticed that the song is written in the C-major scale? (Actually I don't know what scale it's in.) Well, musical scales were invented by someone long before Queen. Have you noticed that the song sounds a lot like some other rock songs of that era?

      Queen didn't write the song in a cultural vacuum. We give them a lot of credit for the song, and we recognize that credit with a certain amount of unnatural legal rights. The law balances those rights with the interests of the culture, which also contributed to the work. Many of us think the law is out of balance, and is immoral.

      BTW, 28 years is mostly arbitrary, and in this case corresponds to the original term. I think 28 years is a bit long, I think 20 or 25 is about right, but I'd be happy to compromise on 28.

    118. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my friend, are an idiot. Stop talking. Now.

    119. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But didn't Congress, our representatives, decide to retroactively extend copyright? And didn't we pretty much re-elect most of those people after they did that? And haven't we voted against everyone who runs on a platform of copyright reform? We have 90 year copyright because we support that. What could be more moral?

    120. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No way, bloke, I'm a yankee! I know of The Chicken Dance, but if The Birdie Song is a sufficiently original adaptation of it, then The Birdie Song enjoys its own copyright term. The OP used The Birdie Song as an example of a terrible song, and I imagine OP was referring to the Tweets version.

      Now as for The Chicken Dance, I would support universal perpetual strict copyright on that song, keeping it out of the public domain -- and away from the public -- for all time.

    121. Re:So,no more DRM by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Con: The only format is MP3, no option for less lossy formats.

      Amazon sells CDs too.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    122. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      {Shrug} Yeah, that's democracy, not morality.

      PS I make that argument all the time. It's a good argument, but obviously flawed in many ways.

    123. Re:So,no more DRM by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Bohemian Rhapsody took liberally from existing Public Domain. Why do people think that all art is created in a vacuum? On the contrary - art that is created in a vacuum is completely worthless, as it has no context.

      This alone tells me that copyright ought to be limited to less than the lifetime of the artist.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    124. Re:So,no more DRM by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Had Apple raised the price of all songs in the store, as the labels wanted, then that would be selling out. Declaring a price drop to $.069 and saying that more songs would be at that level than the top tier is not selling out, and if anything squeezes the labels more by reducing their revenue.

    125. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But you mentioned buy audio CDs. If you really only buy the "best form possible", wouldn't you be using SACD or studio master tapes or something? Why is CD good enough for your golden ears?"

      I do have some SACD content for home use that I like...mostly dual layer ones...I haven't figured how to rip the SACD portions for mp3 usage....for portable players.

      Have I listened to AAC 256 yet? No...our tests were with mp3s and decent quality, and varying quality....and we seemed to get it right most of the time. Was it scientific, and all enough for a case study?? Of course not.

      But bottom line........why would anyone not want to get the bast quality available? Sure there are higher fidelities that CD and eventually I'd like those online, but, for now, the best you can hope for is at least CD quality,a nd I'd be happy to start there for my online purchases.

      Why is there so many posts against this? I'm merely wanting to be able to basically by CD content online like I can in the store? Why is everyone so willing to settle for less?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    126. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Why does it seem to be such a huge request, or stretch to some people, to merely be able to purchase online, what we've been able to buy for years in a brick and mortar store?

      Is it REALLY that far out to want to buy cd quality from an online store? What is the stretch? What do you have against it?

      What would you rather stream...normal 4:3 NTSC qualtiy pictures...or something in 1080p? Me? I'd rather get the better quality of anything I purchase...as best I can and within practical reason.

      I can't see why wanting to by at least CD quality musis without DRM, like I can do at a store on a cd, but, do it online is asking for something too unreasonable?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    127. Re:So,no more DRM by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Can you really blame #4 on Amazon?

    128. Re:So,no more DRM by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as lossless analog to digital conversion.
      True but there is also no such thing as lossess analog recording so digitisation is often the lesser of two evils there. In any case for the vast majority of modern music the "master" will be digital.

      256 Kbps lossy might still be better than lossless if the source material is better.
      It might (though I personally doubt it) be better if the playback system was capable of handling better than CD sample rates.

      In reality the vast majority of sound playback equipment is only CD quality. Given that the signal paths would be (assuming the master is a 24/96 uncompressed source)

      master->lossy encoding->decoding->downconversion->output
      master->downconversion->lossless encoding->decoding->output

      The second path is clearly less lossy than the first.

      Also the fact is that lossless copies at "better than CD" sample rates aren't an availible option for most music. The choice is either CD quality if you buy the CD or a lossy encoding of CD quality music if you buy online,

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    129. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      What the public did was allow Queen to have exclusive rights to the song for a finite amount if time. If Queen was so intent on limiting others' use of the song, they should have kept it to themselves.

      Oh, so the public said, "In return for you making us something we really enjoy, we will, in return, for a finite amount of time, not simply take it from you. After that time though, your work belongs to us". How magnanimous. If Queen wanted to GIVE the song away, they can. They apparently choose not to. If you don't think the song is worth what they're asking, how about just not having a copy, instead of telling them "Thanks for all your hard work, now I'm simply going to take it".
      As for them keeping it to themselves, I'm rather glad they didn't, and so are many other people. I have no problem paying to get a copy, and not using the song in ways the band doesn't approve of because I actually value the talent and work that went into it.
      I don't care if I get modded into oblivion on this, I know that I have a different opinion than a great number of Slashdotters. The truth is though that a great number of Slashdotters have never contributed a damn thing to the world at large, and have no place dictating terms to those who have.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    130. Re:So,no more DRM by ecloud · · Score: 1

      DRM or not, tracks with lossy compression shouldn't cost more than 25 cents, that's my excuse. :-) For 69 cents I want FLAC.

    131. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      But bottom line........why would anyone not want to get the bast quality available?

      Because it's cheaper and more convenient to buy online, and you get tracks already pre-populated with good metadata. Seeing as the music sounds basically identical to a CD - why bother with the additional hassle and expense? It also reduces environmental impact. I don't think that a personal desire for virtually unnoticeable increase in quality is worth the additional impact of make more plastic rubbish and releasing more toxic chemicals into the environment.

      I'm merely wanting to be able to basically by CD content online like I can in the store? Why is everyone so willing to settle for less?

      That was kind of the point of the SACD argument - you have "settled for less" but it's good enough for you. You could get slightly better quality than CD, but for unnecessary expense and difficulty.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    132. Re:So,no more DRM by keatonguy · · Score: 1

      I must say, I think that's a fair trade off.
      The truth is, without DRM, these songs are going to get shared, there's no two ways about it, tacking 30 cents onto the price helps them recoup some of the inevitable losses without frivolous, ugly litigation. It works for me. Hell, I might even use the iTunes store now!

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
    133. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, no, you're wrong. The public indeed did a lot to contribute to the song. Have you noticed that the song lyrics are written in English? Luckily the English language is in the public domain, or else Queen would owe William the Conqueror (or whoever) royalties. Have you noticed that the song is written in the C-major scale? (Actually I don't know what scale it's in.) Well, musical scales were invented by someone long before Queen. Have you noticed that the song sounds a lot like some other rock songs of that era?

      I concede that if things were different they wouldn't be the same, but as it stands, the English language is not in fact copyrighted. Further, I don't think I ever said anything about copyright being enforced in perpetuity, so the customary 50 - 70 years after the author's death would indeed place English firmly into the public domain. Same goes for musical scales. For now, we'll ignore the fact that neither of these things were single works, and that copyright wouldn't have applied to them anyway.

      Queen didn't write the song in a cultural vacuum. We give them a lot of credit for the song,

      How about giving them *all* the credit for the song. They wrote, arranged and performed it. Saying that society at large deserves some credit for it is just as asinine as giving partial credit to Somali warlords for "Black Hawk Down". After all, if they hadn't torn their country to pieces, then "Black Hawk Down" would never have been written.

      and we recognize that credit with a certain amount of unnatural legal rights.

      As opposed to a "natural" legal right? All legal rights are "unnatural". We make them up to make our society a place worth living.

      Many of us think the law is out of balance, and is immoral.

      Yes, not having free Queen albums is morally outrageous. Lets consider some of the other moral outrages that current copyright perpetuates:
      * Prop 8 folks can't use Elton John's "Born Bad" (1979) in their campaign against gay-marriage. Elton, you know being gay and all, has the option to tell them they can't.
      * Westboro Baptist Church can not release a music video of John Lennon being tortured in Hell set to the song Imagine (1971)
      * Holiday Inn can't release a sanitized version the Dead Kennedys song "Holiday In Cambodia" (1980) as part of their advertising campaign without Jello Biafra's sign-off. Considering his apparent attitude towards corporate entities, this is pretty unlikely.

      When oh when will we be freed of the tyranny of copyright?

      I am literally myopic, not figuratively myopic.

      You may actually be both.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    134. Re:So,no more DRM by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a car rental company's pricing. Run a big optimization program in the background. Add a little human intervention in case it makes stupid pricing choices now and then. Some cool code watches how things are selling and, eventually, the prices change based on your IP address, time of day, things you have bought recently and at what prices, gender and how fast you type or click or read. Sounds like an MBA's dream come true.

    135. Re:So,no more DRM by JonDorian88 · · Score: 1

      Everything with a bit of popularity and all the new released I'll bet will be $1.29.

      If you take inflation into account from when iTunes first offered music at $.99 in 2003 you'll see that the markup is only really about 15 cents ($.99 in 2003 has equivalent buying power $1.14 in 2008).

      --
      The 14'th amendment was was created to be an option.
    136. Re:So,no more DRM by JonDorian88 · · Score: 1

      I just want to make the point that Bohemian Rhapsody should be free, considering it entered the moral public domain in 2003 (released in 1975, 28 year copyright term).

      Copyright laws actually protect the works of an author for that persons lifetime + 70 years (as in 70 years after the authors death.) So no, Bohemian Rhapsody is not free and wont be free until we're dead; better start saving.

      --
      The 14'th amendment was was created to be an option.
    137. Re:So,no more DRM by habys · · Score: 1

      Besides, I heard, from at least Freddie anyway, that they were quite grateful for the fortune and fame and everything that went with it.

    138. Re:So,no more DRM by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Now if only Amazon would remember that there is a "rest of the fucking planet". I've had a go at them four times this week alone for trying to sell me Amazon Prime (only benefit is free shipping to USA), trying to sell me an Amazon Visa (USA bank wont issue to me), trying to extend me an Amazon Credit Line (USA bank wont issue to me) and sending me an email about a sale on Amazon MP3 (wont sell to anyone outside USA).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    139. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh, okay, so you don't demand "lossless" audio, you demand the same level of lossiness as CD audio. Got it. Well, no, that's not "unreasonable", but neither is it "unreasonable" that that isn't available. It's not available because CD-quality audio is ten times bigger than MP3-quality audio, which is still, even today, a lot of bits to move around the internet.

      You and me are a lot alike. I'm not "against" CD-quality audio. When I buy music, I usually buy used CDs. I even buy those CDs online, the way you want; the only difference is that the bits are delivered by the postal service instead of by my ISP.

      Sure, we all want the best quality available, constrained by the delivery technology. The internet is constrained by a low bitrate relative to the post office, which is why you can't get as many bits-per-second as you can from the post office. (You probably already know that every day the post office delivers a lot more bits than the internet.)

      In the future, the internet will be faster, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that you'll be able to download regular CD audio. In fact, if you think there's an emerging market for that, you could start it up yourself. But the rest of us aren't hung up on it.

      In the future when you make this same case, be careful not to use the word "lossless", which is what caught me up. Say that you want the same quality as a CD. Oh, one last thing -- CD audio sounds flat and empty compared to DVD-Audio. If you could easily download CD-quality audio, would that be good enough, or would you then want DVD-Audio?

    140. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. It's still $0.30/song or 30% of the album price. Honestly, it seems perfectly reasonable, as you paid the original price knowing full well the limitations of the medium (DRM + lower bit rate). Factoring in bandwidth and improved quality from the original purchase, a nominal charge is reasonable, regardless of the fact that the new version now sells for the same price as the original. Kind of like how you can't just walk into a store a take a $9.99 DVD for free just because you bought the same movie on VHS for $9.99 ten years ago.

    141. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world, everything has different prices depending on demand.

      In the real world, everything costs a different amount to produce.

    142. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Most of what you said is very reasonable and correct. I nitpick only the following:

      The Somali warlords are partially to credit for the movie, as is the rest of humanity, and on a fading penumbra, everything in existence. Again, nothing is created in a vacuum. There would be no need to expire copyrights if it were -- the expiration is a recognition of the shared ownership of the work.

      Yes, not having free Queen albums is morally outrageous. You said it sarcastically, and I say it seriously. Queen albums aren't really what I'm worried about today, but it's a reasonable synecdochic stand-in for all of culture: not having widespread free access to the canon of human culture is morally outrageous.

    143. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. The key word was "moral", as opposed to "legal".

      Also, I think it's sometimes even longer than you said.

    144. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Oh, so the public said, "In return for you making us something we really enjoy, we will, in return, for a finite amount of time, not simply take it from you. After that time though, your work belongs to us". How magnanimous.

      That is exactly how copyright laws are written today. Do you have a problem with current copyright law?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    145. Re:So,no more DRM by JonDorian88 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think the estate of the author can file for an extension. I've never heard of moral public domain though. Where can I read more on it?

      --
      The 14'th amendment was was created to be an option.
    146. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I've had a go at them four times this week alone for trying to sell me Amazon Prime (only benefit is free shipping to USA),

      Even if you do live in the USA, Prime is not a good deal. It is a psychological incentive to short-cut the math of comparison shopping and just buy from Amazon but much worse it is something Amazon can take away from you if they don't like you.

      For example, a few years back, a whole bunch of people got in a billing dispute with Amazon, to make a long story short, Amazon shipped out a bunch of mispriced items and a week or two later they started demanding them back or full payment of the difference. Most of the people just blew it off, but then Amazon did two things - started charging their CC#'s on file (a major contractual violation of their merchant contract) and when that didn't work, they started "boycotting" some of those customers - people who had paid for Prime but now couldn't get any use out of it. Essentially taking their $50 Prime charges and keeping it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    147. Re:So,no more DRM by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The _highest_ price is $1.29, and they claim "more songs will be $0.69 than will be $1.29".

      Either way with DRM free music the consumer benefits.

      I wonder if Apple will go to a dynamic pricing model - song prices could rise and fall based on demand; enabling them to increase profits by changing price to maximize revenue.

      I like the DRM free idea - I wonder if we can convert existing songs for free for those that are now below the original $.99 price.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    148. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Because it's cheaper and more convenient to buy online, and you get tracks already pre-populated with good metadata. Seeing as the music sounds basically identical to a CD - why bother with the additional hassle and expense?"

      But my point is...what would be the extra hassle and expense for them to offer identical to CD quality online? They've take the DRM off..now, just up the quality and size a little...there should be no major reason not to offer it that way..?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    149. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Somali warlords are partially to credit for the movie, as is the rest of humanity, and on a fading penumbra, everything in existence. Again, nothing is created in a vacuum.

      I'd say this is completely wrong. The warlords deserve "credit" for what they actually did. The creative work, the novel, is creditable only to the writer. You don't credit the stone that a sculptor uses for the sculpture because it's raw material, useless to the unskilled, but the basis for a masterpiece in the hands of a master artisan. Stories are like that as well. The ideas, the raw information is useless to the average person on the street, but in the hands of a master it's the basis for an enduring work of art. If that weren't the case, there'd be millions of "Black Hawk Down"s, one for every person who was in any way involved or heard about the actual events. As an aside, I'm not suggesting that "Black Hawk Down" is an enduring work of art, it was just the first example that sprang to mind for some reason.

      Yes, not having free Queen albums is morally outrageous. You said it sarcastically, and I say it seriously. Queen albums aren't really what I'm worried about today, but it's a reasonable synecdochic stand-in for all of culture: not having widespread free access to the canon of human culture is morally outrageous.

      I'd say that the fact that the song is such a part of modern culture is proof in and of itself that the copyright restrictions aren't particularly onerous. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we'd be unaware of its existence. Sure, it'd be nice if pretty much everything was free, but that's not how society works. Copyright has provisions for fair-use, but to simply take someone else's work while crying "freedom" is simply a display of a sense of entitlement, that things should be free because you like them and you deserve to have them without contributing (i.e. paying).

      I am curious though, what about my examples? Are you willing to argue that Elton John, Yoko Ono (as the current copyright holder to Imagine), and Jello Biafra are immoral for not allowing the scenarios I described above? If not, where does that leave your assertion that copyright beyond 28 years is immoral?

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    150. Re:So,no more DRM by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well....in the terms usually bandied about here...lossless would be a format where you compress the music file without losing some bits. A format like FLAC or AAC lossless (see the word is in the name of the format) could be used...it is about half the size of the wav file...

      So sure, it would be a little bigger file, but, I can't imagine that would break the bank anywhere...people download movies and tv shows all the time and those are much larger....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    151. Re:So,no more DRM by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      ... there will be no $2.50 tracks

      ...yet.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    152. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      That is exactly how copyright laws are written today. Do you have a problem with current copyright law?

      There's a world of difference between losing any semblance of control over your creations while you watch and having it happen 50 - 70 years after your death. If I write a hit song, and in 130 years your great grandchildren decide to use it as the theme to their new Holovision show, I probably won't be overly concerned since I'll most likely be long dead. Do it in 28 years while I'm still [hopefully] alive and kicking, and I'll be inclined to scream bloody murder. Write your own song if you don't want to use mine, but if mine is good enough for you to use, it's good enough for you to pay for.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    153. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So, it's all about you FEEL.

      So, the first couple of hundred years of copyright law in the USA were unjust in your opinion?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    154. Re:So,no more DRM by Maserati · · Score: 1

      I've got about fifty bucks worth of upgrades downloading right now. It (naturally) is a whole new file download for each track. iTunes offered to move the old files to a folder on the desktop or just trash 'em.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    155. Re:So,no more DRM by Maserati · · Score: 1

      If anything over 6 years old is dropping to $0.69, then I'm at dire risk of completing my New Wave collection. Checking a few Essentials collection, I don't see any drops. Yet.

      Dropping the price of an impulse buy for nostalgia music can only increase sales.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    156. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      We'll have to just disagree on whether a "master" creates art with no outside influence or help. Black Hawk Down is a bad example for your case, because it's not even an "original" piece of fiction, it was actually based on real events. But even pure fiction isn't purely the result of the writer's creativity. I'm sure you agree that if an author rips off a predecessor, then the author "owes" that predecessor. I'm simply saying that all authors "owe" all of their predecessors and contemporaries to some degree.

      And I strongly disagree with this:

      I'd say that the fact that the song is such a part of modern culture is proof in and of itself that the copyright restrictions aren't particularly onerous. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we'd be unaware of its existence.

      We're only talking about that song *because* we know about it. Why don't we talk about that really great song that was written by that one guy in the early 1940s -- you know, that really deep and inspiring one, the one that got bought by that company, which went out of business before releasing it widely. Golly, why can't I remember the name, you know it's the one that the author then wanted to give a copy to his children, but wasn't allowed to. Oh well, I guess it's gone forever.

      Um, okay, now as far as Elton, Yoko, and Jello are concerned -- uh, I don't have a well-formed opinion. My first thought is, yes, they might be immoral for denying the use of works created long, long ago. Really, that would come down to a matter of the term of the copyright. Would it be immoral for Shakespeare's descendants to deny the public theater the right to put on Hamlet? I'd say yes, but it's a lot more clear when it's been hundreds of years.

      Don't put me in the group with people who want to do away with copyright. I just want to get the balance right.

    157. Re:So,no more DRM by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh, lossless with respect to the source data. So, you would be okay with MP3 if that was the format of the original recording?

      I think it's more useful to focus on how good the recording sounds, rather than get hung up on the format. That brings me back to my original point: does MP3 sound okay to you? If so, then just let it go, man; and if not, then you might have a career in your ear.

    158. Re:So,no more DRM by he-sk · · Score: 1

      What the public did was provide Queen with an audience, without which Queen would not have existed.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    159. Re:So,no more DRM by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Amazon MP3 is available in the UK now.

      And if you are annoyed by how US-centric many big companies are, then maybe you should move here and reap the benefits :)

    160. Re:So,no more DRM by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's not a big deal. But for most users, it would probably be a minor inconvenience. Hardly any portable players support lossless formats (other than uncompressed ones like WAV). And even if they do, it means the tracks take up a lot more space. So basically that means that rather than instantly syncing, the computer would have to convert each track to a lossy format when transferring to the portable device.

      That's something I'd be willing to put up with, but I would imagine Apple doesn't want to add further complications and contortions to the system.

      Or it could be something that the labels aren't willing to do, so at the moment is out of Apple's hands. This could very well be the case, because I don't see Amazon offering lossless tracks either, only the "indy" sellers like Magnatune. Anyway, it's just not an issue for 99% of the market.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    161. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The truth is though that a great number of Slashdotters have never contributed a damn thing to the world at large, and have no place dictating terms to those who have.

      Truth is is nobody has a place dictating to others what those others paid for. And they definitely don't have a place deciding to change the rules when the game's almost over.

      Falcon

    162. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      As opposed to a "natural" legal right? All legal rights are "unnatural". We make them up to make our society a place worth living.

      Perhaps you're not an American, US citizen, but if you are then you need to read Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". Notice where he writes "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are natural. However the Constitution of the USA grants congress to establish copyrights. Because government can grant them they are not rights, as government can grant or deny them they are privileges not rights.

      Falcon

    163. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      iTMS costs the same to run whether it's selling a million songs, or only a single song.

      Boy are you wrong. Bandwidth cost money, the more you use the more you pay. And downloading a million songs, er one song a million tymes, takes more bandwidth than downloading the same song only once. Then again maybe you live where bandwidth cost nothing.

      Falcon

    164. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that this is a nuisance, what's wrong with 3rd party software? As a OS X developer I don't feel my work is inherently inferior to Apple's. There are many examples where 3rd party software is way superior to Apple's own equivalent, e.g. The Finder.

      What replaces the Finder that's better than it is? Having asked that, I prefer Windows Explorer, about the only thing I prefer Windows over OSX about. On another hand, I want to learn how to use Fink and Macports.

      Falcon

    165. Re:So,no more DRM by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this will be the next BS reason that people give. For years, it's been 'I'll never buy from iTunes because they have DRM! Remove the DRM and then I'll buy!'

      Ok, the DRM is removed. It's time for all of the people who've been parroting the same line for the last five years to decide if they're actually going to start buying songs from iTunes, or if they're going to suddenly switch to some other excuse.

      Buy or don't buy, I don't care, just be honest with yourself and the rest of us, that's all I ask.

    166. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Until now, the only DRM-free option with a comprehensive catalog was Amazon.

      There are other sources of DRM-free music. Some of them are:

      Those are just ones I have bookmarked.

      Falcon

    167. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By continuing to offer favorable terms to Amazon, WalMart*, and friends, they can potentially keep iTunes from having the monopoly they used to.

      Has anybody provided credible proof that the labels offered favorable terms to Amazon, Walmart, et al (but not iTunes Store)? I see this speculation a lot on Slashdot, but never any proof to back it up. I think it's more likely that iTunes Store was offered the same terms as the other stores (DRM-free, but different wholesale prices for different songs), but Apple demanded one price for all songs regardless of how popular or old the songs were. It looks like Apple finally agreed to take the same terms as the other stores.

    168. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So, what happens to all the music people already bought? Will Apple auto-magically convert it to DRM-free with an iTunes update?

      I read where Apple will allow people to upgrade their music for $.30 a song, if they pay the 30 cents they can download the song with a higher bit rate and without the DRM.

      Falcon

    169. Re:So,no more DRM by MrPloppy · · Score: 1

      Dude the Birdie Song IS AWESOME!

    170. Re:So,no more DRM by warrigal · · Score: 1

      Made-up statistics are unconvincing... unless you have a barrow to push.

    171. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      So, it's all about you FEEL.

      When you get down to it, isn't that what most laws come down to? Murder is illegal because we feel it's wrong. Same goes for robbery, rape, etc. If we lived in a different type of society, a more aggressive one, perhaps these things wouldn't be illegal. So yes, I feel it's wrong to take control of someone else's creation without their consent while they watch.

      So, the first couple of hundred years of copyright law in the USA were unjust in your opinion?

      I'm not sure what the original terms were, and frankly I really don't care. I find 50 years from the death of the author to be a suitable period of time.

      As I've said before, if you want to use someone else's work, apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to use it.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    172. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Why don't we talk about that really great song that was written by that one guy in the early 1940s -- you know, that really deep and inspiring one, the one that got bought by that company, which went out of business before releasing it widely. Golly, why can't I remember the name, you know it's the one that the author then wanted to give a copy to his children, but wasn't allowed to. Oh well, I guess it's gone forever.

      He shouldn't have *sold* his rights to the song then, should he? That happens sometimes in business, you make a deal that turns out to be a bad one. Welcome to capitalism, the best bad system we've got.

      Um, okay, now as far as Elton, Yoko, and Jello are concerned -- uh, I don't have a well-formed opinion. My first thought is, yes, they might be immoral for denying the use of works created long, long ago. Really, that would come down to a matter of the term of the copyright. Would it be immoral for Shakespeare's descendants to deny the public theater the right to put on Hamlet? I'd say yes, but it's a lot more clear when it's been hundreds of years.

      So far your examples have run towards things hundreds or thousands of years old. These things would not be protected by copyright. Shakespeare's works would be very comfortably in the public domain by now. The issue I'm arguing is taking control of an author's creation from him or her while that author is still alive, and for a term immediately following their death. I'm not comfortable telling the people I named above that they have no right to dictate how their work is used, and I certainly wouldn't tell them they are being immoral for not allowing their work to be used in ways that are diametrically opposed to their beliefs and views.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    173. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Would you care to explain the mechanism that these rights are granted, and what "Creator" is being referred to? Hint: Jefferson wasn't a particularly religious man. Perhaps you should take that phrase a little less literally and a little more figuratively.
      "Nature" does not have a conscious agenda. "Nature" is not sentient. "Nature" does not write laws. We believe that there are certain rights inherent in being human, but that is a concept we created for ourselves, along with all of our other laws.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    174. Re:So,no more DRM by martinX · · Score: 1

      >> I find 50 years from the death of the author to be a suitable period of time.

      I think that's a dangerous attitude to promote. All this will result in is the "information (and pop songs) wants to be free" crowd gunning down successful popstars just so they can get their mitts on their songs for free in 50 years time.

      A fixed term for copyright will at least allow the popstars to live. Won't someone think of the popstars?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    175. Re:So,no more DRM by martinX · · Score: 1

      He thanked us all.

      But it's been no bed of roses. No pleasure cruise.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    176. Re:So,no more DRM by theanorak · · Score: 1

      Some stores offer FLAC-encoded tracks. Bleep.com is one.

      --
      === Ask yourself if it's really necessary...
    177. Re:So,no more DRM by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Personally I expect them to uphold this promise of more songs being priced at $0.69 than $1.29. However I expect 99% of the $0.69 songs to be Cindy Lauper, Vanilla Ice, or a 70's Swedish Dance Band remix done with traditional medieval instruments.

      The point is they can offer a lot of utter crap at the lower price point. Things that they expect to sell maybe 7 copies of - and as gag gifts at that - and not violate this promise.

      I'm not saying they will. I'm just saying that this promise is wholly meaningless.

    178. Re:So,no more DRM by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      In CD's? Hmm.. maybe they do. Anyhow that is interesting.

    179. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the terms imposed on a purchase, don't make the purchase. You won't die without a copy of NiN's Downward Spiral.
      If enough people did this, then you'd see the terms change as the market adjusted to try to make sales. If you just buy a product though, while agreeing to whatever terms the seller wants, then you don't get much sympathy from me when you say you didn't like the terms but made the purchase anyway.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    180. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Obviously I can't mod right now, but I'd give you a "+1 Funny" for that one if I could :)

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    181. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I know plenty of bands who never play in front of an audience. They most certainly exist. Fame and money are side effects of art, they are not [typically] causes of it.
      If Queen had no audience, it's entirely possible they'd have noodled around on weekends creating music as a diversion from their jobs as store-clerks or whatever.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    182. Re:So,no more DRM by Phasma+Felis · · Score: 0

      What are people going to whine about now?

      Well, they've been blaming Apple for DRM for years even though Apple never wanted DRM but was forced to use it by the record companies, and has been fighting it all along. So now I'm expecting everyone to blame Apple for SecuROM or preachy messages on DVDs or some other thing they have no control over.

      Aaaand now I'm going to get modded Troll for saying something nice about Apple. Woo.

    183. Re:So,no more DRM by k_187 · · Score: 1

      Legal and the downloads are now at 256kbs AAC instead of 128. Makes it worth the 30% upgrade cost if you ask me. Especially since half the music I have from there Pepsi bought anyway.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    184. Re:So,no more DRM by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      BTW, Apple, by definition, can't "sell out". Thanks for playing though.

      Care to elaborate on this statement? Not to wildly throw out accusations of fanboyism here, but my initial interpretation reads, "Apple is so inherently cool that whatever they do, for whatever reason, has got to be great!"

      What is so magical about Apple that they are fundamentally incapable of selling out?

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    185. Re:So,no more DRM by PIBM · · Score: 1

      You've not been following slashdot lately, have you?

    186. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, I don't think I ever said anything about copyright being enforced in perpetuity, so the customary 50 - 70 years after the author's death...

      50-70 years after the author's death is a recent development. Copyright has had many different durations throughout history. One of those was 28 years. Why do you take it for granted that the current life-plus-50-70-years is OK, but reject out of hand an argument that the previous 28-year term was better?

      How about giving them *all* the credit for the song. They wrote, arranged and performed it.

      They didn't invent the name Scaramouche, or Galileo. They didn't invent the fandango. They didn't invent Beelzebub, or the doctrine that he is in charge of allocating devils to sinners...

    187. Re:So,no more DRM by cstepan · · Score: 1

      William the Conqueror spoke French, as did most of the Kings of England in the Middle Ages, when they weren't busy dying of dysentery. Richard the Lionhearted, that exemplar of the English Monarchy, spoke only French and spent approximately 20 minutes on English soil in his entire life.

      What this has to do with DRM, I don't know. But the fact that we went from there to here says something. What that something is? Again, I don't know. Athesimo bless the internets!

    188. Re:So,no more DRM by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Sure, it'd be nice if pretty much everything was free, but that's not how society works [...] to simply take someone else's work while crying "freedom" is simply a display of a sense of entitlement, that things should be free because you like them and you deserve to have them without contributing (i.e. paying).

      Queen have been paid. Over and over and over again. Society has rewarded them richly for their creation: the surviving members of the band are wealthy and famous.

      How many times do we have to pay for a song, how much money and fame do we have to give to its creators, how many decades will pass, before you will finally acknowledge that they might just have received enough reward, and we can finally have the right to sing it ourselves in a bar without being sued?

      I am curious though, what about my examples? Are you willing to argue that Elton John, Yoko Ono (as the current copyright holder to Imagine), and Jello Biafra are immoral for not allowing the scenarios I described above? If not, where does that leave your assertion that copyright beyond 28 years is immoral?

      You say elsewhere that you are not arguing that copyright should be perpetual. So where do you draw the line?

      For example, if you happen to support the status quo, the question becomes: what exactly will happen 50-70 years after the death of Elton John that suddenly changes the morality of using one of his songs in an anti-homosexual campaign? If it is OK for Yoko Ono to have total control over the use of John Lennon's work many years after his death, why is it OK for that right to vanish overnight in a few more decades? (It's unlikely she'll still be alive, but it's possible; she's only 75, and medicine is getting pretty good these days.)

      I can see that you might make an argument for making copyright last for the lifetime of the author: it would presumably be based on the theory that it's not right to stop people from profiting from their own labour. But I have never yet heard anyone give a compelling reason why it should last a day longer.

    189. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Throughout this thread I've argued specifically why I don't agree with a straight 28 year term, I'm not going to repeat it again here.

      They didn't invent the name Scaramouche, or Galileo. They didn't invent the fandango. They didn't invent Beelzebub, or the doctrine that he is in charge of allocating devils to sinners...

      No, they didn't, but they did configure those words and composed music to go with them that people actually want. If the words themselves were all that mattered, then your post would be destined for greatness, after all, it used the same words, right? As it stands though, your post won't even be read by most (posting AC tends to get you ignored), and those who do read it will forget about it 10 seconds later as it's not particularly profound or interesting. This is also why most people would rather read a novel than a dictionary. The dictionary has all the same words as any novel, and even more, but unless someone configures those words they aren't all that interesting (unless of course you write dictionaries).

      I'm noticing a theme in this thread of people who seem to think that creating a literary or musical work is somehow trivial because all these people do is take words that already exist and talk about things that happened. If it's so easy, do it yourself. It should be a piece of cake to write a bestseller, or a top-10 hit. Just get some words and kinda put them together....

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    190. Re:So,no more DRM by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      I Apple's point would be that they are charging for the service of providing easy searching and downloading. If you really want the song for free you can find it get it from other sources with a little bit more effort. On the other hand, the fact that record labels could make money on tapes, CD's and other media containing public domain material seems to have created an expectation that they would always be able to do so. They put in DRM to try and force you to repurchase public domain material when formats change.

    191. Re:So,no more DRM by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards. A for-profit company is already "selling out". So, if somebody gets their knickers in a twist over Apple selling out or Google being evil, they weren't looking at the situation clearly in the first place.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    192. Re:So,no more DRM by he-sk · · Score: 1

      In which case nobody would want to pirate their songs and we would have no need to discuss the public's right to their music.

      But Queen did in fact choose to publish their songs and reaped huge benefits because of that.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    193. Re:So,no more DRM by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Only a few weeks ago, Amazon opened the MP3 store in the UK. A little too late though, now that Apple has removed a core reason for people to use it.

    194. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      So what are you saying, Queen should make their music free because in the past people paid for their music?

      What about this is so difficult?
      Queen created music.
      You want that music.
      Queen says you can have it, and names a price.
      You then choose, it's either worth the price and you buy it, or it's not worth the price and you walk away.
      The fact that they've made a lot of money on it in the past has no relevance. They made something, you want it. If it's really worth nothing, why do you want it so badly? Go make your own music instead. Then, you can not only "stick it to the man" by not paying for someone else's work, you can also give it away to all the people who will surely be clamoring for it. Except there probably won't be much clamoring, because making music that anyone actually wants is hard, and chances are you (like me and almost everyone else) aren't very good at it.

      Hey, why don't we take it to the next step now though. You get your wish, all of Queen's library is now public domain, and you can do with it as you please. So what pleases you at the moment is to start selling "Best of Queen" albums. This would be awesome for you, because you can sell them on TV (KTel has been doing this for years, buying rights at a discount for songs that are trivially easy to download for free, so don't tell me there's no market), and the best part is, you did minimal work (assembling the CD), and you get all the benefits! Screw Queen, they made their money, now it's your turn. Just because you're (the "you" in the example, not you personally) a talentless leach shouldn't stop you from making a few bucks in the music biz, should it?
      Do you feel you have the right to do what I describe above? Does Queen deserve nothing for their "Best Of" album because 28 years has passed? Do you deserve the proceeds of the album, just because you were able to assemble a CD and put together some advertising? If the copyright has expired, there's not much stopping you from doing it....

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    195. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Queen have been paid. Over and over and over again. Society has rewarded them richly for their creation: the surviving members of the band are wealthy and famous.

      No, society has not. Individual members of society have. Why should you now get a free-ride because they paid before you? What if we were talking about an amusement park instead? Lets say that Disney recouped their investment in 1980. Should they now drop the prices to only cover maintenance and overhead while foregoing any profit? After all, society rewarded the Disney family richly over the years, it's remaining members are wealthy. Why should we continue to pay $60 per ticket to get in when it only costs them $30 per guest to maintain the place?

      How many times do we have to pay for a song, how much money and fame do we have to give to its creators, how many decades will pass, before you will finally acknowledge that they might just have received enough reward, and we can finally have the right to sing it ourselves in a bar without being sued?

      How about until the owner of that song says you can have it for free? You're demanding they give up something that apparently has value, but you're certainly not offering to give up anything in return. If you don't like paying for creative works that other people made, then simply go without them. If you want to play music in a bar without any strings attached, write your own. If you do that, you even have the option of giving it away for free if you like. CAUTION - MINI-RANT AHEAD: Personally I think there are too damn many cover bands anyway. Most of the time there's a juke-box (turned off) within 20 feet of the band that contains all the same songs they intend to play. It's pretty much Karaoke for musicians (instead of just a singer everyone gets to play). If people were less used to cover-bands, perhaps bands would be more comfortable trying out their own material instead. Think about it, you never hear about "cover-comedians" who just stand on stage re-enacting old George Carlin routines, do you? Sure, being in a cover band is a lot of fun (I've done it myself), but doing original stuff is much more interesting and if done well much more impressive. My personal formula is one, maybe two covers per set assuming that you're doing two or three sets in a night.

      You say elsewhere that you are not arguing that copyright should be perpetual. So where do you draw the line?

      For example, if you happen to support the status quo, the question becomes: what exactly will happen 50-70 years after the death of Elton John that suddenly changes the morality of using one of his songs in an anti-homosexual campaign? If it is OK for Yoko Ono to have total control over the use of John Lennon's work many years after his death, why is it OK for that right to vanish overnight in a few more decades? (It's unlikely she'll still be alive, but it's possible; she's only 75, and medicine is getting pretty good these days.)

      For me it's an issue of it being far enough removed from all the folks who were involved in it's creation, but I wouldn't tell you you're wrong if you favoured life-of-the-author and no more. I think anything beyond the author's lifespan is probably an arguable point, including perpetual copyrights, but I happen to favour the customary 50 - 70 years.
       

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    196. Re:So,no more DRM by kelnos · · Score: 1

      I am curious though, what about my examples? Are you willing to argue that Elton John, Yoko Ono (as the current copyright holder to Imagine), and Jello Biafra are immoral for not allowing the scenarios I described above?

      I'm not the original poster, but...

      Elton John: I'm ok with him not allowing use of his works in ways he'd consider objectionable.

      Yoko Ono: She didn't write Imagine. Why does she get a say in how it's used? Lennon is dead; his work should go to the public domain.

      Jello Biafra: Same as Elton John, assuming Biafra is still alive.

      But that's just my personal feel to it. I could easily consider defensible the position that copyright terms should be limited to a fixed time period that ignores the lifespan of the author. Regardless, I don't see why copyright should pass to next of kin just as normal property does. It's all well and good to inherit your parents' house and bank account when they die, but why should you be able to make continuing royalties off their creative works?

      But I feel like an author-lifespan copyright term would be too complicated to work out properly. Currently we allow corporations to hold copyright, and I don't think we can abolish that. We also have the concept of copyright assignment, so presumably a copyright holder could assign copyright to someone much younger than them if they feared they were close to death. So, for simplicity's sake, I'd argue for a fixed-length, non-extendable copyright term somewhere on the order of 30-60 years (somewhat arbitrary; that just 'feels' right to me).

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    197. Re:So,no more DRM by kelnos · · Score: 1

      I'm not comfortable telling the people I named above that they have no right to dictate how their work is used, and I certainly wouldn't tell them they are being immoral for not allowing their work to be used in ways that are diametrically opposed to their beliefs and views.

      Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure I agree with it. Why does a 'creative work' get extra protection than a normal one? If someone creates and builds some sort of device and then sells it, the creator (without some sort of up-front negotiated contract) has no say in how it's used, and I don't think they should.

      Sure, it's not 'the same thing,' but, really, nothing is. A creative work is very different from a manufactured object -- the creator often attaches emotional significance to it. Presumably it's this emotional attachment that would lead the creator's decision to allow or deny a particular use of their work. As someone (perhaps you?) said farther up the thread, laws are based on emotion -- we *feel* that murder is wrong, so we have a law against it -- and so we feel that authors of creative works should have certain protections. But we have to balance the emotional and financial needs of the creator against those of society at large. I would lean farther on the side of society than current copyright laws do.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    198. Re:So,no more DRM by kelnos · · Score: 1

      They didn't invent the name Scaramouche, or Galileo. They didn't invent the fandango. They didn't invent Beelzebub, or the doctrine that he is in charge of allocating devils to sinners...

      No, they didn't, but they did configure those words and composed music to go with them that people actually want. If the words themselves were all that mattered, then your post would be destined for greatness, after all, it used the same words, right? As it stands though, your post won't even be read by most (posting AC tends to get you ignored), and those who do read it will forget about it 10 seconds later as it's not particularly profound or interesting.

      I disagree; I found it pretty interesting, and would have moderated it as such if I had mod points (and hadn't posted yet).

      No one's saying Queen didn't do any work. But they didn't do *all* the work. As the AC says, they didn't invent the concept of Beelzebub, or the name Galileo. While they do deserve recognition and credit for how they arranged the words, our amorphous "culture" deserves credit for some of the names and concepts that Queen drew upon to create their work.

      I'm noticing a theme in this thread of people who seem to think that creating a literary or musical work is somehow trivial because all these people do is take words that already exist and talk about things that happened.

      Then, sadly, you aren't really reading or comprehending what other people are saying. We're talking about *shared* credit. We could of course argue all day about how much that credit is shared -- 90/10 in favor of Queen? 80/20? 50/50? 30/70? But the fact remains that Queen's creation drew on collective culture and previous creative work. It had to; it'd be mostly meaningless otherwise.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    199. Re:So,no more DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shakespeare's works would be very comfortably in the public domain by now.

      If Shakespeare had written after the Steamboat Willie era, there's no reason to hope its copyright would ever be allowed to lapse. The duration has continually been extended for decades now.

      taking control of an author's creation

      That creation is one of an unlimited number of copies of an inanimate thing. What you call "control of a creation" is actually control over the audience, which is where the ethical problem arises.

    200. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      No one's saying Queen didn't do any work. But they didn't do *all* the work. As the AC says, they didn't invent the concept of Beelzebub, or the name Galileo. While they do deserve recognition and credit for how they arranged the words, our amorphous "culture" deserves credit for some of the names and concepts that Queen drew upon to create their work.

      No, what I'm arguing against is that society is not an active collaborator by virtue of simply existing. Collaboration implies specific effort. Society did not take any actions to consciously assist in producing Queen's music. Society did not attend jam sessions or post-production. To get credit for something, you should probably play a more active role than simply existing, otherwise we may as well call the guitars and drumkits collaborators.

      Then, sadly, you aren't really reading or comprehending what other people are saying. We're talking about *shared* credit. We could of course argue all day about how much that credit is shared -- 90/10 in favor of Queen? 80/20? 50/50? 30/70? But the fact remains that Queen's creation drew on collective culture and previous creative work. It had to; it'd be mostly meaningless otherwise.

      Oh I'm comprehending it very nicely thank you. You feel that somehow credit can be assigned to "collective culture", even though that culture played no intentional role in the creative process. Since everyone shares that "collective culture" though, doesn't that mean that it has pretty much the same amount influence on everyone? If that's the case then, couldn't you establish a baseline, something like "Everything everyone does is probably about 10% attributable to our 'shared culture'"? And if that's true, is it worth even mentioning anymore? At that point, the playing field is more or less level; the only important and meaningful part is that remaining 90%, as that's the part that varies from person to person.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    201. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Why does a 'creative work' get extra protection than a normal one? If someone creates and builds some sort of device and then sells it, the creator (without some sort of up-front negotiated contract) has no say in how it's used, and I don't think they should.

      It's given extra protection because, unlike a physical work, anyone can take it and use it in any way they want without concrete consequences. For instance, before copyright, an author could find people selling his work for profit while he himself was penniless. The person selling the work in question literally contributed nothing to it, they simply procured a copy of the work and then began producing their own version of it, at times making more from it than the original writer.
      I don't see it necessarily as "extra" protection though, it's simply a different type. Think opt-in vs. opt-out. Your device creator can indeed place restrictions on his device by making potential buyers sign a contract stipulating those restrictions (opt-in), whereas an author can allow free and unrestricted use of his work if he wishes by stating it (opt-out). Further, your device-maker can patent his device, preventing you from setting up shop and simply copying his work and profiting from it, an avenue that is denied the author because of the nature of his creation.
      Now, you may say that you wouldn't sign a restrictive contract for this device, that you'd find some other device that would do the job for you, or invent a device of your own. The same holds for music or literature. If you don't like the terms imposed, don't buy it. Go make your own, or listen to/read something with less onerous terms. There are indy artists who will let you download and trade their music, with the hope that they'll make their living from doing live shows. Go support them. There's your moral position, support those who exercise their rights in a way you agree with rather than those who exercise them in a way you disapprove.

      As far as emotional attachment goes, yes, I think that we should allow for the idea that a creative work carries a greater emotional attachment than, say, inventing a new type of gyroscope. I've engaged in all kinds of inventive and creative endevours (nothing great, but enough to give me a taste), and I can't imagine a situation where I would suffer the kind of distress at a device being used in a way I don't like compared with a song or story I wrote being used to (for instance) inspire hatred. Personally I feel that allowing that would be a cruel way to repay an artist for their contribution to society.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    202. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      If Shakespeare had written after the Steamboat Willie era, there's no reason to hope its copyright would ever be allowed to lapse. The duration has continually been extended for decades now.

      As I've already said in multiple places in this thread that I don't support the idea of copyright in perpetuity, I don't see why you're bothering to bring this up.

      That creation is one of an unlimited number of copies of an inanimate thing. What you call "control of a creation" is actually control over the audience, which is where the ethical problem arises.

      Utter crap. If you don't want to be "controlled", don't be a member of the audience. Nobody forces you to listen to Queen (although admittedly all tapes left in a car for more than about a fortnight metamorphose into Best of Queen albums). You want free music, fine. I don't agree that you have the right to demand it from the people who do the creating.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    203. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Elton John: I'm ok with him not allowing use of his works in ways he'd consider objectionable.

      Yoko Ono: She didn't write Imagine. Why does she get a say in how it's used? Lennon is dead; his work should go to the public domain.

      Jello Biafra: Same as Elton John, assuming Biafra is still alive.

      Personally I'd give it to Yoko, but while I support the idea of 50 - 70 years after the author's death I still feel that you have a valid, if differing take on it.

      As far as copyright terms and lengths go, here's part of what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
      Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author's death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate authorship; some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
      I generally agree with this, but like I said, I concede that the period following the authors death is arguable.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    204. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Would you care to explain the mechanism that these rights are granted, and what "Creator" is being referred to? Hint: Jefferson wasn't a particularly religious man. Perhaps you should take that phrase a little less literally and a little more figuratively.

      You're right Jefferson wasn't religious. He even said religion was a private affair and that's where religion should stay, private. Because of that, and because he was a Deist, when he ran for president some clergy and other religious people tried to demonize him, Alexander Hamilton compared him to an atheist. TJ went so far as to take the Bible, strip all the passages about miracles and such and released the Jefferson Bible. As for how I take his statement I don't take it as been religious at all. For all I care the creator could be evolution. The point though is that rights are innate not granted.

      "Nature" does not write laws. We believe that there are certain rights inherent in being human, but that is a concept we created for ourselves, along with all of our other laws.

      Some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton did not want rights to be enumerated in the Constitution. If rights were enumerated then some rights may be overlooked. Hamilton even wrote "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." So as a compromise the Constitution was written without them then the Bill of Rights amended the Constitution.

      Falcon

    205. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the terms imposed on a purchase, don't make the purchase. You won't die without a copy of NiN's Downward Spiral. If enough people did this, then you'd see the terms change as the market adjusted to try to make sales. If you just buy a product though, while agreeing to whatever terms the seller wants, then you don't get much sympathy from me when you say you didn't like the terms but made the purchase anyway.

      I don't illegally download and the last music I bought I got a few years ago. I do however buy movies. That does not negate my right to speak out and say I think things are wrong however.

      As I've said before about politics and who gets elected, if you don't vote don't complain when a politician does something you don't like. I don't get to vote for people who's positions I agree with most of the tyme but I still vote, I just vote for the person who comes closest to me on the issues that matter most to me. For instance this past November I checked off Obama even though I didn't want to vote for him, to me he was better than McCain. If you look at some of my posts before the election you'll see I supported Bob Barr for president.

      Falcon

    206. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      When you get down to it, isn't that what most laws come down to? Murder is illegal because we feel it's wrong.

      No, not really. Feelings and logic are two different things. The intent of the legal system is that it be based on logic and rationale evaluation of the consequences the law. That doesn't mean it isn't frequently abused by people with your attitude, but those abuses are in no way a justification to give up on the goals of the system.

      As I've said before, if you want to use someone else's work, apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to use it.

      If you want to breath the oxygen produced by someone else's trees, then apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to breathe it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    207. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      No, not really. Feelings and logic are two different things. The intent of the legal system is that it be based on logic and rationale evaluation of the consequences the law. That doesn't mean it isn't frequently abused by people with your attitude, but those abuses are in no way a justification to give up on the goals of the system.

      Nonsense. Slavery is perfectly logical from the perspective of the enslavers, and was practiced by civilizations that lasted far longer than ours has (slavery-free) so far. We've outlawed it not because of logic, but because we find it morally repugnant, we feel it's wrong.

      If you want to breath the oxygen produced by someone else's trees, then apparently you feel it has some value. If it didn't you wouldn't want to breathe it.

      Can you really not see the difference here? And honestly, you're free to try to charge me for air from one of your trees. Simply place your trees into an air-tight container, feed carbon-dioxide into it, collect the oxygen they produce, and bottle it. I won't buy it of course, but you're welcome to try. I wouldn't count on getting rich on that business model though. Creative works don't simply float though the air and attach themselves to your MP3 player. You know pretty much where they came from, and who to credit with their creation.
      In short, your analogy == epic fail.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    208. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      And this means copyright is an "unnatural right" exactly how? What the founding fathers were talking about is a group of rights that they believe were inalienable to all men. You've done nothing to refute my suggestion that the language used is not figurative (referring to the rights endowed on man by his creator). Your own comments of Jefferson support the idea that the language is figurative rather than literal. Why is your right to take an artist's work for free a "natural" right, and his right to control over his creation an "unnatural right"?

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    209. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Slavery is perfectly logical from the perspective of the enslavers, and was practiced by civilizations that lasted far longer than ours has (slavery-free) so far. We've outlawed it not because of logic, but because we find it morally repugnant, we feel it's wrong.

      It is true that the law starts with a few basic principles. But do not make the nonsensical mistake of assuming that because a handful of principles are accepted on their own merit that the rest of the 99.999999% of the law is simply independent principles of "feeling" rather than logical derivatives of those original principles.

      Can you really not see the difference here? And honestly, you're free to try to charge me for air from one of your trees. Simply place your trees into an air-tight container, feed carbon-dioxide into it, collect the oxygen they produce, and bottle it. I won't buy it of course, but you're welcome to try.

      I can just see you struggling to get this analogy out without invoking the blindingly obvious comparison to simply not publishing a creative work.

      Creative works don't simply float though the air and attach themselves to your MP3 player. You know pretty much where they came from, and who to credit with their creation. In short, your analogy == epic fail.

      But, try as you might, you just could not figure out a way to word it to disguise the obvious, so you did the next best thing and admited up front that both air and creative works are non-excludable. But don't be so foolish as to think admitting the obvious lets you deny it.

      Your declaration of "epic fail" notwithstanding, it is essentially impossible to enforce claims of ownership to ideas just as much as it is impossible to enforce claims of ownership of air. Examples are rampant, so called "copyright orphans" are a serious problem with the current system precisely because copyright ownership is not as obvious as you make it out to be. Credit for creation is one thing, but ownership of copyright is completely distinction from it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    210. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I don't think I came off the way I intended to in my last post. Of course you have every right to complain and argue for a "better" system. I do think though that you are better off voting with your wallet though, since by purchasing the media the only message the media companies are going to get is that they've got another "happy customer". Maybe renting instead would be a good compromise, as you'd still get to see the movie, DVD sales would go down, and you're still getting it though a legitimate channel. Hell, rent and pass it around to a few friends before it's due back, seems like fair game to me.....

      I think I was aiming more at people who buy a movie or cd, rip it, and then put it on bit-torrent while shouting "The information wants to be free!", and then watch in stunned amazement as the lawsuits pile up (not to say I agree with the RIAA strategy of suing people into oblivion, personally I think it's a rotten way to do business).

      I am not particularly on the side of big media conglomerates, and honestly I'm not a huge fan of rich rockstars either. I just don't think taking their work is the right way to go about it. I'd rather see the business model driven into the ground, to the point where mp3s are virtually worthless from a market standpoint, and then perhaps the media companies die off and the artists go back to playing live shows to make their money. But, if they want to ask $15 for a CD, and people want to pay it, who am I to simply walk in and say "Okay, you've made enough, now I'm giving away your work for free".

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    211. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I needed that :)

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    212. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Hey, sorry I never replied to you...you sort of got lost in the noise (I'm badly outnumbered here!). Anyway, if you're still interested in the topic, I think your points are addressed in other parts of the thread by now......

      In any case, I just noticed that you were the only person I didn't reply to and it seemed rude to just let it lie that way.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    213. Re:So,no more DRM by he-sk · · Score: 1

      So what are you saying, Queen should make their music free because in the past people paid for their music?

      That's copyright in a nutshell. For a limited amount of time the creator gets a monopoly on the distribution rights which he can monetize. After a while the default case kicks in where everybody can make copies.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    214. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      It is true that the law starts with a few basic principles. But do not make the nonsensical mistake of assuming that because a handful of principles are accepted on their own merit that the rest of the 99.999999% of the law is simply independent principles of "feeling" rather than logical derivatives of those original principles.

      Okie dokie, so instead of just saying they exist, name a few. The logic of a great many of them rests on how we as humans feel about things though, so do try to keep that in mind. I'll get you started:
      Murder: My neighbor, who lives alone and has no dependents is constantly bullying me and vandalizing the neighborhood. I am a productive member of society, and he is on welfare and is actually a drain on society. I decide to simply kill him, removing the problem, and actually making society stronger by eliminating a non-functional member. Seems logical. What actually happens is that I'm convicted of murder, because we as a society feel that human life is valuable, even if the human in question doesn't function as a contributing member of that society.

      Theft: Bob is loaded. Millions and millions of dollars, more than he could ever use. I have nothing. I work hard every day, unloading trucks, while Bob actually doesn't do anything, since he won that money on a lotto bet. I am actually starving, and I realize that Bob has been leaving a pile of sandwiches next to his open kitchen window. I take one, because logically, it doesn't harm him at all, he'd probably never even notice, where as I am in dire straights. I'm arrested for theft because we feel as a society that it's wrong to take things that don't belong to you, whether the victim of the crime is harmed by that loss or not.

      Everything we do as a people is filtered through how we feel about what we're doing. If we evolved from sharks instead of apes, perhaps we'd think it's okay to eat each other. We didn't though, so we're not generally fond of that kind of thing.

      I can just see you struggling to get this analogy out without invoking the blindingly obvious comparison to simply not publishing a creative work.

      I'd say the comparison is just fine. If I want to, I can release my song to everyone without any restrictions (just like the oxygen from your trees right now). Or, I can release it with restrictions and you're free to take it or leave it (as would happen with your special bottled air). But you're right to a point, I wouldn't have chosen the whole tree thing myself in the first place, that was your call.

      But, try as you might, you just could not figure out a way to word it to disguise the obvious, so you did the next best thing and admited up front that both air and creative works are non-excludable. But don't be so foolish as to think admitting the obvious lets you deny it.

      Um, where did I do that? Air goes everywhere, and you have limited control over which air you're breathing at any given moment. Your mp3 player contains songs that you intentionally put there.

      Your declaration of "epic fail" notwithstanding, it is essentially impossible to enforce claims of ownership to ideas just as much as it is impossible to enforce claims of ownership of air. Examples are rampant, so called "copyright orphans" are a serious problem with the current system precisely because copyright ownership is not as obvious as you make it out to be. Credit for creation is one thing, but ownership of copyright is completely distinction from it.

      For something that you claim to be essentially impossible, copyright is enforced pretty well on a daily basis. As for orphans, they point out a flaw in how copyright is executed, but not necessarily a fatal flaw, it's perfectly fixable. Perhaps digital is the answer to this, and a provision should be made that some form the work must be made available during the entire time of it's copyright

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    215. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Um, yeah......the point of the discussion is how much time. My point in that example is that as long as Queen is still alive and kicking (and for a little longer), you should have to pay them to use their work.
      You ignored the bulk of the post, which is really, I think, the important parts. Why should you have the opportunity to make money from their work, while paying them nothing, after contributing nothing, while they are still around?

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    216. Re:So,no more DRM by norminator · · Score: 1

      I think the tiered pricing doesn't go into effect until April-ish...

      I also misread the slide from the keynote that gave me that idea. Apparently they were just talking about how up until now (for the last 6 years), songs have been 99 cents, and now they will be $.69, $.99, and $1.29, all at the discretion of the labels, although they have said that there will be more $.69 tracks than $1.29 tracks.

    217. Re:So,no more DRM by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You can upgrade, but apparently not for free.

      I wanted to upgrade a couple songs I care about, and the Apple rep told me that I had to upgrade my entire library to upgrade any. She was willing to offer me some credits against the ones I had no consideration for (yeah, I bought some shitty songs, who hasn't?) but it was easier to just got to Amazon.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    218. Re:So,no more DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Okie dokie, so instead of just saying they exist, name a few.

      I'm sorry, you are unclear. You want me to come up with examples that support your argument? Its unclear because your examples jump to conclusions and ignore the first principles I was talking about like "all men are created equal" and "the right to a fair trial."

      Or, I can release it with restrictions and you're free to take it or leave it (as would happen with your special bottled air). ...
      Air goes everywhere, and you have limited control over which air you're breathing at any given moment. Your mp3 player contains songs that you intentionally put there

      You seem to lack an understanding of the word excludable. It isn't about the choice of the consumer, it is about the natural control of the creator. Its a common misunderstanding in such discussions, generally stemming from a lack of knowledge beyond econ 101. Seeing as how your entire argument is predicated on that error, I won't be replying any further.

      I've seen the way these go, you will either try to dispute the indisputable, haggling about the definition of excludable like so: "copyright is enforced pretty well on a daily basis" or try to apply some sort of moral justification lacking any firm root in first principles that the current law, despite all its costs and poor enforceability is "right." Been there, done that, horse to water and all. Good luck with the buggy whips.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    219. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you are unclear. You want me to come up with examples that support your argument? Its unclear because your examples jump to conclusions and ignore the first principles I was talking about like "all men are created equal" and "the right to a fair trial."

      Um, noooo, I was asking you to provide examples of laws that are based purely on logic and devoid of any "human" motivations. You made the claim that I was ignoring the vast majority of law that is based this way, but you failed to provide even a single example. Perhaps you don't understand how this works....you made a claim, so it's up to you to provide facts to support it. I threw out a couple of examples to pick up the slack for you.
      Now, if you're seriously trying to use ""all men are created equal" and "the right to a fair trial" as examples of logic-based law that has nothing to do with human emotion as a base motivation, you're clearly not understanding your own claim. The idea that all men are created equal is almost completely based on an emotional idea. Logic dictates that all men are most certainly not created equal. Some are far stronger than others, some are far smarter than others, some are capable of being nearly entirely self-sufficient, and others are barely capable of looking after themselves inside of the support of modern society. The right to a speedy trial similarly is based on the feeling that people should be treated fairly. Hell, the idea of a trial at all as we understand it is based on our very human sense of fair-play, and is a relatively modern concept. If it was an inescapable conclusion of logical thought, it probably would have cropped up much earlier in human history than it did, and it would probably be far more universal in practice than it is.

      You seem to lack an understanding of the word excludable. It isn't about the choice of the consumer, it is about the natural control of the creator. Its a common misunderstanding in such discussions, generally stemming from a lack of knowledge beyond econ 101. Seeing as how your entire argument is predicated on that error, I won't be replying any further.

      Look, if you only want to talk to professional economists, why on earth are you on Slashdot? But then again, you aren't looking for that at all are you? You're getting trounced, your arguments are disjointed and badly formed, and now in a fit of pique, you're going to try to plead that you're too much of an expert for the conversation and hurry off. Then again, you probably will respond to this. It's not definite, but I give it better than a 70% chance, even though you "won't be replying any further".

      I've seen the way these go, you will either try to dispute the indisputable, haggling about the definition of excludable like so: "copyright is enforced pretty well [lek.com] on a [macobserver.com] daily basis [informationweek.com]" or try to apply some sort of moral justification lacking any firm root in first principles that the current law, despite all its costs and poor enforceability is "right." Been there, done that, horse to water and all.

      Ah, so since copyright laws are not 100% effective in protecting the rights of copyright owners, we should ditch copyright entirely? But hey, let's take a look at those links you provided.
      All three make the same obvious mistake. They count every pirate copy of a movie/software package/music album as a "lost sale". This is a fairly absurd statement, as it's one hell of a leap to assume that each one of these copies would have otherwise been purchased legitimately. Of course, it's not surprising that all three of the articles make this error, they're based on studies by the MPAA, the BSA and the "Institute for Policy Innovation", an organization that never seems to fail in finding exactly the results the industries it shills for want them to find.

      Soooo, three articles, three examples of bad methodology, and you've proven wha

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    220. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      'd rather see the business model driven into the ground, to the point where mp3s are virtually worthless from a market standpoint, and then perhaps the media companies die off and the artists go back to playing live shows to make their money.

      Actually from what I heard most artists do make most of their money from performing and not from record sales. The media companies keep most of the money from cd or mp3 sales. Artist only get a few percent, if they're lucky.

      if they want to ask $15 for a CD, and people want to pay it, who am I to simply walk in and say "Okay, you've made enough, now I'm giving away your work for free".

      As I said before I don't have a problem with that, my problem is with the length of copyrights. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation but an artist can't create art if they're dead. If you want to encourage creation then you want copyrights short so they have to keep creating to make money.

      Falcon

    221. Re:So,no more DRM by cybernanga · · Score: 1

      Try Pathfinder http://cocoatech.com/

      --
      www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
    222. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Actually from what I heard most artists do make most of their money from performing and not from record sales. The media companies keep most of the money from cd or mp3 sales. Artist only get a few percent, if they're lucky.

      I think that's both true and false, depending on the band and how big they are....all the more reason to support indie bands. Reward them a bit before the RIAA members get their hooks into them.

      As I said before I don't have a problem with that, my problem is with the length of copyrights. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation but an artist can't create art if they're dead. If you want to encourage creation then you want copyrights short so they have to keep creating to make money.

      That's actually an interesting take on it, but I don't think it'd work that way. Sure, Stephen King can churn out bestseller after bestseller, but I think that the "one hit wonder" is really more realistic for most authors. I'd rather see their work protected, not just the right to charge for it, but the right to control it's use at least until their death and as I've said before, for a bit longer.
      Also, have you considered the reverse? If Stephen King books were free, wouldn't that encourage publishers to simply churn out massive new editions of his work, and encourage bookstores to stock those new editions rather than taking any risk on a new author? Publishing is a hard business as it is. If a massive number of titles that are still popular with the public were suddenly free for the publishers to market and sell, they'd almost certainly continue their pattern of staying with only the safest investments. You see that now with them giving massive preference to known authors, give them those authors works for free and I suspect that that getting published as a new author would go from extremely difficult to virtually impossible.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    223. Re:So,no more DRM by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Thats not exactly true. Bandwidth is a commodity that does not scale up linearly. And the cost of running itms on a day that has the links saturated is the same as the cost on a day where the links are all idle.

      Anyway you still failed to refute the the inifnite supply argument, Let's assume that that in a 24 hour period itms can transfer a million songs. Now what's the difference if it's a million instances of a single song (high demand) and a million unique songs? (low demand) There's none! In a scarcity world, you'd ratchet up the price of the high demand song because you only have so many, and supply and demand have to reach equilibrium, but you have as many as required! Supply and demand are always in equilibrium in this case from a scarcity and pure cost point of view.

    224. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Sure, Stephen King can churn out bestseller after bestseller, but I think that the "one hit wonder" is really more realistic for most authors.

      Most people have to work for a living and one hit wonders should too. They shouldn't get a free lunch the rest of their life just because they created one hit. If they can't write or perform more than one then they should get into another field of work.

      I'd rather see their work protected, not just the right to charge for it, but the right to control it's use at least until their death and as I've said before, for a bit longer.

      I don't think anyone should get a free pass the rest of their life just because they created one hit. And that is not what copyrights are about, they are there to encourage creation.

      Also, have you considered the reverse? If Stephen King books were free, wouldn't that encourage publishers to simply churn out massive new editions of his work, and encourage bookstores to stock those new editions rather than taking any risk on a new author?

      I did not say abolish copyrights, perhaps you missed where I said I don't have problem with them, that my problem was the length of the term of copyright. Or perhaps you're trolling. A 7 year copyright term should be enough for many to make a living, if what they create people are willing to pay for.

      If a massive number of titles that are still popular with the public were suddenly free for the publishers to market and sell, they'd almost certainly continue their pattern of staying with only the safest investments.

      This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work. Secondly people can self publish, heck right now people are using the web to publish. I could write a book and post it on my own website. To make money I could offer a downloadable pdf file of the book. I could also allow readers to order printed copies. This could actually be the beginning of the end for large publishing businesses. I plan on doing something like this for my photography. What photographers are doing now, some at least, is post low resolution photos on websites then have a link where purchasers can buy higher resolution images for download. Some take it a step further and allow people to order prints, with and without frames. I've talked to wedding photographers who create a website for a wedding and offer a way for people who attend the wedding to order prints. At least one of them creates and prints books about it. Though it was years ago while in college taking Computer Science and internet classes for electives I also took photography classes and a number of photo students wanted to do something like this.

      Falcon

    225. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Thats not exactly true. Bandwidth is a commodity that does not scale up linearly. And the cost of running itms on a day that has the links saturated is the same as the cost on a day where the links are all idle.

      Are you saying websites pay the same amount whether they use little bandwidth or a lot? Check out The real cost of bandwidth - network management challenges". A better one is this one, "Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling", in it it says of bandwidth "it is sold at a rate of 'per megabit per second per month'". That means the more used the more it costs.

      you still failed to refute the the inifnite supply argument

      What infinite supply argument?

      Falcon

    226. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Most people have to work for a living and one hit wonders should too. They shouldn't get a free lunch the rest of their life just because they created one hit. If they can't write or perform more than one then they should get into another field of work.

      First of all, a single "hit" novel is unlikely to result in a lifetime winfall and automatic retirement. It's possible you could find an example of this happening, but I've known a few authors in this situation, and they're nowhere near retiring on their riches. If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing. The money you make on your works will, with luck, add up to a decent income. More likely though, unless you're one of those rare exceptions, you'll keep your day job anyway.

      I don't think anyone should get a free pass the rest of their life just because they created one hit. And that is not what copyrights are about, they are there to encourage creation.

      And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around. Why are you so insistent on telling other people what should happen to their work? Write your own books, then give them away free whenever you like, nobody is stopping you. But just like nobody tells you that you *can't* give away your works for free, I don't feel you should be telling other people that they *must*.

      I did not say abolish copyrights, perhaps you missed where I said I don't have problem with them, that my problem was the length of the term of copyright. Or perhaps you're trolling. A 7 year copyright term should be enough for many to make a living, if what they create people are willing to pay for.

      I'm specifically addressing a short copyright term. Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?
      Or let's take yet another example. With a seven year copyright, don't you think that movie companies will just wait seven years to do a film adaptation and get out of dealing with the author at all? They could use the author's work for free, and change it any way they like. Why exactly should the studios be rewarded for waiting seven years, and the author given nothing? How does this encourage creativity?

      This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.

      No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.

      Secondly people can self publish, heck right now people are using the web to publish. I could write a book and post it on my own website. To make money I could offer a downloadable pdf file of the book.

      True, people can and do self-publish using the web. Typically this is met with fairly poor results though. I can't think of any examples off-hand of anyone that was a major success at it in the past 10 years or so that didn't already have a significant print background first. Doesn't mean there aren't any, but if they are they must be pretty thin on the ground.

      I could also allow readers to order printed copies. This could actually be the beginning of the end for large publishing businesses.

      Vanity presses have been around for ages, and I've yet to see a self-published title that's come out of one regarded very seriously. Usually they tend to carry a fair amount of scorn. One reason for this is that the publishers do provide one service that a vanity press doesn't, quality control. Granted not every book to come through a

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    227. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.

      That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

      And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around

      No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.

      Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?

      Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.

      This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.

      No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.

      Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?

      I wish you the best of luck with it

      Thanks.

      Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.

      I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.

      Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.

      Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.

      Falcon

    228. Re:So,no more DRM by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

      That would be nice, but they don't all have it in them. Stephen King is wildly prolific, but for someone who doesn't have it in them to keep that kind of pace copyright encourages them to do it at least once anyway. If it's no good, well then nobody cares anyway, but if it really is a great novel, aren't we better with it than without it?

      No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally .....

      I generally admire Jefferson, but he wasn't infallible and who knows what his position would be now as the world is a vastly changed place from the one he knew. At best I think perhaps he was giving the right answer for his time, and at worst I think he was flat out wrong on the subject.

      Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat [google.com] made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.

      Obviously I was talking about after the copyright expires. The example still stands. What I was saying there isn't that nobody will publish those works, it's that based on their popularity combined with the fact that they're royalty free they will be over-published, at the expense of new authors who are struggling for attention. Releasing a new edition of "The Stand" or "The Shining" is a far better bet for the publishers than releasing a new work by an unknown. We already see a similar effect now, with franchised fiction. Look at how much space is taken up by "Star Trek" novels. Personally, I don't find them to be very good (I've flipped through a few), but they're guaranteed to sell because they're based on a well known franchise. The amount of shelf-space they get at the booksellers is monstrous, and I am absolutely sure that compared with 20 years or so ago the amount of space for "riskier" fiction has been shrunk to make room for these.

      Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf" [imdb.com], "The Mask" [imdb.com], and "The Man in the Iron Mask" [imdb.com] were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?

      Why wouldn't they have been made into movies? Right now "Marley and Me" is in theaters, and the book is fairly new. "Harry Potter" movies were made without a problem, and "Twilight" was not only made, but is apparently on it's way to having sequels. Current copyright doesn't seem to interfere with the studios making movies at all. If the studios believe it's a moneymaker, they'll do it. And if the studios believe it's going to be a moneymaker, why on earth shouldn't the person who actually wrote it be paid? They have no problem throwing millions to the actors and directors, and those folks wouldn't have a movie to make without the author.

      I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.

      Yeah, for weddings

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    229. Re:So,no more DRM by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

      That would be nice, but they don't all have it in them. Stephen King is wildly prolific, but for someone who doesn't have it in them to keep that kind of pace copyright encourages them to do it at least once anyway.

      If they don't have it in them then they should do something else. If nothing else they can work doing something else while writing in their free tyme. That's what many open source programmers do, they work on an open source project in their free tyme.

      I generally admire Jefferson, but he wasn't infallible and who knows what his position would be now as the world is a vastly changed place from the one he knew.

      If he were alive today, I'd bet he'd have copyright terms shorter. More is being created now than any tyme in history. As I said in my post you replied to as well as others technology makes it easier and cheaper to publish. About 20 years ago I spent a few hours designing fliers and posters in Quark Xpress on a Mac for a dance class recital, back then I danced myself. Today I could do that in an hour or two.

      Obviously I was talking about after the copyright expires.

      If it's going to be a best seller, more than likely it will be one while it's still being protected by copyright.

      Why wouldn't they have been made into movies?

      Because they were copyrighted and the copyright holder didn't want movies of them made. By the way, how would it be determined who the copyright holders were?

      "Harry Potter" movies were made without a problem

      They were made using the open source software CinePaint. As was "The Last Samurai" and a number of other movies.

      Yeah, for weddings, the best photogs I've met are usually the ones who do it occasionally enough that they aren't cynical about it,

      Perhaps that's why I wouldn't want to be a wedding photographer, I am cynical about marriage. To too many people it's disposable, if marriage doesn't work get a divorce and try again.

      I think I'm about played out on this subject.

      Ok, take it easy.

      Falcon

  3. Cool and all.... by Eggz+Factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but I was really hoping they would finally update the MacMini.

    --
    blah, blah, blah...
    1. Re:Cool and all.... by zippthorne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Also, to a lesser extent (but more important to me...), the iMac.

      They don't even have to* upgrade the specs. They could just update the price.

      *yes, I know they don't "have to." That doesn't change the fact that when they do finally update to hardware that more closely mateches their asking price, I won't be in the market any more, having already purchased a PC and laptop with better specs and combined $100 less than the entry iMac.

      Oh Apple. If only your smooth integration didn't cost $800 (more than $400 hardware that is equivalent, except for 30% faster and 300% more RAM, 300% more video RAM, 25% more last-level-cache, and 30% more hard disk space).

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Karl Popper would disapprove... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

    3x the charges and lifespan of the industry standard

    This is a completely unfalsifiable statement. A Mac user wouldn't be caught dead with this model once the new 17.1" Macbook Pro comes out in six months. No one really knows how long any Apple product "could" last.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    1. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by samkass · · Score: 1

      They were referring to the battery, not the laptop. Although it's not removable by the end-user, it has 60% more capacity per charge and degrades 3x slower than the industry average batteries, as well as being the right shape for a super-slim laptop.

      I know a lot of folks are going to gripe about the lack of removability, but I've never actually hot-swapped a battery and would much rather have a 7 hour usable life on a 17" laptop. Wow.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by contrapunctus · · Score: 1

      It's about hot swapping a battery. I have a 2.5 year old macbook pro and the battery needs replacement (holds charge for 10 minutes).
      I know the new batteries are better but I don't want that to force me to get a new computer.

    3. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure it won't force you to get a new computer. First of all, the new battery is supposed to last much, much longer, so it'll be more like 5 years before you're in the same boat. And if you still want to keep this machine 5 years from now, you can probably take it to a service location to have the battery changed, like Apple does with iPods.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by contrapunctus · · Score: 1

      you can probably take it to a service location to have the battery changed

      That's a good point, if I know that the battery can be replaced, I have no problem with the new system, but I can't buy it if I don't know for sure...

    5. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      They stated it can be charged 1000 times. That means if you use your laptop every day you will need a new one in 2.7 years. I tend to use my computers for 4-5 years depending on my economy. I am already displeased that in my current MacBook Pro that I cannot replace easily the hard drive.
      This is the 17" laptop. We don't buy them for small form factor. I much rather have a fatter laptop with replaceable parts then a thin 17" without. The MacBook Air you buy it because you want a small laptop there is value in being small. So loosing user replaceable parts in order to get it smaller is a fair trade off. But for the 17" Why bother, it is going to be big and bulky anyways. And you use it more as a portable workstation then a laptop.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The longest battery life I've ever had -- and I still miss it -- was around 12 hours, even 15. It was a 10" Sharp subnotebook, with a small battery that lasted maybe 3 hours, and a much larger battery (probably weighed more than the notebook) that lasted nine to twelve hours.

      Even if you adjust for the fact that I was running Gentoo, I still wasn't likely to get less than 9 hours, even with the thing compiling a lot.

      Of course, it was less convenient -- I had to hibernate, swap batteries, and resume. When I had a Powerbook, it had a tiny internal battery, so you could swap the main battery, and as long as you did it in less than ten minutes, you'd be fine.

      I think the main reason people don't do this is that batteries are usually expensive, and there's still no way to charge them except in a laptop. Imagine if you had a 7 hour usable life on that laptop, but two or three batteries. Now imagine you could plug the AC adapter directly into the battery. Now you never have to tether the laptop itself, just swap batteries every now and then.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They stated it can be charged 1000 times. That means if you use your laptop every day you will need a new one in 2.7 years.

      No, that means if you *charge* your laptop battery every day you'll need one that often (I didn't check your math, but that's not my point). If you use your laptop as a desktop replacement, as many Apple owners seem to do (especially that big honkin' 17" we're talking about), it's probably plugged-in all the time, and I'm hoping that Apple made it not recharge the battery all the time it's plugged in, so it may last much, much longer than that. It depends on how you use it. Not that I'm defending the idea of a non-removable battery (I think it's completely asinine), but let's not go overboard.

      I'm more a fan of the ThinkPad way of doing things - one big main battery, with a removable optical drive that you can replace with a second battery. Now *that's* giving a user options.

    8. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by Sancho · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wonder how long you'll be without your notebook while the battery is replaced. And how long they'll support these notebooks. And how much it will cost.

      Batteries already cost quite a bit, and they're claiming that these batteries will last for 5 years. Will they even still be replacing batteries in these ancient computers that far into the future?

    9. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by ThePiMan2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good news, it said right in the keynote they will have a battery replacement program. It can be replaced, just not by you.

    10. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about their recalls? They have several going for different models batteries right now.

    11. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Whoosh*

      No need to duck, it appears that Mr. Grumbline's aim is far above your head.

    12. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by chaim79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      you can probably take it to a service location to have the battery changed

      That's a good point, if I know that the battery can be replaced, I have no problem with the new system, but I can't buy it if I don't know for sure...

      <sarcasm>No, the battery is welded to the uni-body laptop frame, to replace the battery costs $4k and your left arm.</sarcasm>

      iPods, iPhones, etc. all have enclosed "non-removable" batteries that can be replaced, either through Apple themselves or through third-party replacement kits. The Apple Air laptop has a similarly non-removable battery that can be replaced (only 7 screws between you and the battery, not bad). I really don't think Apple will go to great lengths to make it impossible so it should be similar to iPods and the rest.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    13. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by samkass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Without trying to be too snarky or anything, it might help to Google for a few seconds before posting FUD.

      Here are all the details for the MacBook Air, and I would expect them to be very similar for the new MacBook (that is, $125 for same-day service with appointment at an Apple Retail Store and 3-4 days + shipping time by mail). The price could conceivably be higher because of the new technology, but even 2x the price isn't that bad if the battery really lasts 5+ years as is claimed.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    14. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Now imagine you could plug the AC adapter directly into the battery. Now you never have to tether the laptop itself, just swap batteries every now and then.

      This sort of thing is pretty common in "corporate" laptop sales. We've got a cart full of laptops in the library here that can be checked out by students; there's a charging unit on top of it that holds a dozen batteries or so, so there's always one that's topped off to put in a laptop as it goes out.

      --saint

    15. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      All depends on how you read the fine print. The iPhone is rated for 300-400 full power charges before dropping below 90%. Four nights of quarter power recharges roughly equals one full cycle.

      So, in essence, it depends on your personal usage cycle as to how long it will last.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    16. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by dhovis · · Score: 1

      I had a Newton eMate 300 that got 24 hours on a charge (If you didn't use the backlight). But if you want a fast processor, a video card, color, backlit, WiFi, and a modern web browser in your laptop, you're going to get less.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    17. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, the one I had was some 256 megs of RAM and a 1 ghz Transmeta processor.

      No, not a fast processor, or a fast video card. But it was backlit, had wifi, and could handle a modern browser. It could also play downloaded anime, though it had trouble with DVDs.

      It was, in other words, similar to a modern netbook, only costing quite a lot more.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    18. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by ecloud · · Score: 1

      No, that means if you *charge* your laptop battery every day you'll need one that often (I didn't check your math, but that's not my point). If you use your laptop as a desktop replacement, as many Apple owners seem to do (especially that big honkin' 17" we're talking about), it's probably plugged-in all the time, and I'm hoping that Apple made it not recharge the battery all the time it's plugged in, so it may last much, much longer than that.

      Yeah one would hope. :-)

      Nevertheless LiPoly batteries seem to last 3 years or less even when you are kind to them, before something goes wrong (severe reduction of capacity, start expanding like a balloon and prying the case apart, total failure etc.)

    19. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, if I know that the battery can be replaced, I have no problem with the new system, but I can't buy it if I don't know for sure...
      Once the machine is on the open market someone will almost certainly rip it appart and get us details on how easilly each of the internal components is to replace.

      Getting hold of the replacement battery may be more of an issue but I would be very surprised if apple didn't sell them somehow (though possiblly only to approved service centers) and if there is sufficiant demand I would expect third parties to offer replacement batteries as well.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      For $300 dollars you could buy the same machine used OR you could buy a new battery. I haven't found buying new batteries for 2 year old (or more) laptops to be compelling over the last 10 years. (NOTE: Prices not exact and may not be quoted. For comparison purposes only.)

    21. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Can.. Just not by you with an Apple Kit...

      People with a little know-how have been changing their iPod Batteries for ages - which is another 'non-removable' battery.

    22. Re:Karl Popper would disapprove... by kelnos · · Score: 1

      Well, as they state, and others have noted, the battery is indeed replaceable, just not as easily as you can on current models. I'm sure ifixit (and others) will come up with step-by-step instructions for people who want to do the replacement themselves, and for those who don't, Apple will do it for them.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  5. Battery?! by Helios1182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, it isn't that hard to make a user removeable battery. Just do it -- people want it. It is a freaking laptop!

    1. Re:Battery?! by internerdj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry this is an Apple article. Apple not only gives the consumers what they want but the list of what they are supposed to be wanting in the first place.

    2. Re:Battery?! by qw0ntum · · Score: 2, Funny

      One less button.

      --
      'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    3. Re:Battery?! by GoCal92 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course they could do a removable battery. The point they made in the keynote was that a removable battery takes up a bunch of space. By making the battery non-removable, they gained 40% more room for a bigger, longer-lasting battery. The design trade off here was removable battery for more battery life. The market will decide whether that was a good trade.

    4. Re:Battery?! by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come on, it isn't that hard to make a user removeable battery. Just do it -- people want it. It is a freaking laptop!

      I recall people complaining a lot louder when they lost their floppy drives, LPT ports, RS232, ADB/PS2, etc. Nobody's stopping you from keeping your old laptop, getting one on ebay etc.

      I have the previous gen 17" MBP and have never needed to remove the battery except to upgrade RAM/HD. I'd happily trade the feature in exchange for more internal charge capacity.

    5. Re:Battery?! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Come on, it isn't that hard to make a user removeable battery. Just do it -- people want it. It is a freaking laptop!

      Who moderated this to "insightful"? If you had a quick look at www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery , you would find that by making it non-removable, Apple managed to make it 40% bigger in size. A user-removable battery takes more space for packaging the battery, more space for the mechanics to get it in and out, and more empty space inside the computer.

    6. Re:Battery?! by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it makes the laptop smaller and lighter, some poeple (myself included) happily will give up a replaceable battery.

      Thinking back over the last 15 years for the seven or eight laptops I've owned (two Mac, the rest various brands of Linux/Windows laptops) I've bought a new battery I believe twice, both as replacements not secondary batteries.

      I've never carried two at a time so I could swap one when it was dead.

      Apple isn't a stupid company. They wouldn't make that change if they didn't believe that loud-mouth-whiners-aside, it would impact sales in the least.

      Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos... and yet sales took off of the new laptop. That feature excluded that laptop from my consideration, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision for them.

      Just because you don't like a fixed battery doesn't mean "people want it" or it was a bad decision.

    7. Re:Battery?! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. It's rare you see a post on slashdot that properly qualifies for trolling and insightful moderation. I'm suitably impressed.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:Battery?! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Come on, it isn't that hard to make a user removeable battery. Just do it -- people want it. It is a freaking laptop!

      Give me a reason why you would need a removable battery for anything other than having to swap a battery mid-flight from Japan to North America because your laptop battery only gives you a 4-5 hour window of use per charge. If it last for up to 8 hours, that should be more than enough even for a long flight across the Pacific or Atlantic. You are not going to be using your laptop the entire time anyway since people have to eat, get up and use the toilet and potentially take a nap.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    9. Re:Battery?! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Not even when it exploded?

      A non-removable battery would have completely destroyed my MBP.

    10. Re:Battery?! by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I have a 12" Powerbook (6 years) and a 15" Intel MacBook Pro (3 years). I've never removed the battery from either to swap it out. There was a flaw with 15" MBP lithium polymer battery couple of years ago and Apple replaced it on the spot. This is such a non-issue to typical pro users. I run all kinds of heavy stuff on mine like FCP Studio and CS3 apps. When the juice runs out I look for an outlet, not some imaginary spare battery, which I neither have nor willing to carry around.

    11. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, one ski short of a pair, or simply a moron you pick!

    12. Re:Battery?! by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do know that this is pure horse shit, right?

      There is no trade off. You make the battery removable. You might get a seam on your casing. Oh no. But you most certainly do not lose 28.5% of your space! (1 - 1/1.4)

    13. Re:Battery?! by sexconker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If Dell said they were going to non-removable batteries, there would be s hit storm.

      Being non-removable does not increase the capacity of a battery, nor should it give you an increased volume in any competent design.

      Apple is selling bullshit pie and the fans are eating it up yet again.

    14. Re:Battery?! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The apple battery thing is pretty fricking annoying though...Hell, the "un-openable" appliances are the reason I'll never buy a Mac for myself.

      I once had to add RAM to 20 new Mac Mini's. Do you know how to add RAM to a Mac Mini? Step one is to go out and find a putty knife or a spark plug gapper, or a straight razor, and step two is to use it to pry the fricking case apart.

      "Then pry the case apart" is a step you hear over and over with the macs. I'm just not going to pay a premium for something I can't take apart without resorting to a lever. It's bad enough with the iPod, and I go through those before the battery wears out.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    15. Re:Battery?! by vlm · · Score: 1

      You would find that by making it non-removable, Apple managed to make it 40% bigger in size.

      Never having owned or disassembled a MAC laptop, are MAC laptop batteries enclosed in giant shock mounted bullet-proof safes or something? I assure you the run of the mill PC laptop does not have that kind of packaging loss, at least in the numerous ones I've disassembled.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:Battery?! by kherr · · Score: 1

      I've become very annoyed at my battery in my MacBook Pro, it's been a weak point in the case. I seem to always put the most pressure right where the battery is when moving my laptop. Sure, it could be moved, but does everyone grab the laptop the same way? Could it ever be moved to a good place?

      I'm not sure how good the battery in the new 17" MBP is going to be, but I think it's the right idea. Most people replace their laptops every 2-3 years (especially in the high end world), and those who don't will surely have battery replacement options.

      A more interesting issue is how do you "unfreeze" something with a built-in battery? I've had to remove my battery a few times to get the machine to cold start, not sure how Apple's worked around that with the sealed battery.

    17. Re:Battery?! by sexconker · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're a tool and a moron if you believe any of that.

      You have to "package" the battery just the same.
      The connectors on the battery still have to be there.
      There is no empty space necessary for a removable battery that isn't necessary for a non-removable battery.

      The batteries being thinner won't get you additional charge per volume (you get less!).

      It's a battery claim - they're always bullshit.
      It's a claim based on Apple's internal testing - proven to be always bullshit.

    18. Re:Battery?! by jamietre · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Here are a few:

      1) Buy a new battery. Even their claimed 2-3x industry standard isn't more than a year or two if you use your laptop every day. I'm still using a three year old laptop which is perfectly fine even for software development.

      2) Not having to send your laptop to Apple when they inevitably recall the battery

      3) A long flight is much more than 8 hours. Try going to Australia or Hong Kong.

      If Apple really can't make a removable battery without a 40% overhead in space, then they aren't really the geniuses that you all think they are, are they? Really, connectors and a metal or plastic shell increase the size by almost half again? They should probably take a cue from some of the technological design marvels you can find in, say, a typical AA battery. What BS.

      In the end, it's fairly irrelevant, because any serious business user won't be considering Apple products.

    19. Re:Battery?! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1, Troll

      Do you have anything in the way of facts to back up your statement, or are you just spouting an uninformed opinion about a technical matter?

    20. Re:Battery?! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want a removable battery, then don't buy an apple. Buy a Dell, since they have that nifty system where you can plug a battery in to the drive bay giving you two batteries. That also means you can have a big stack of batteries and you can keep on hot-swapping them all day long, since you can hot-swap either of the batteries without losing power.

      I suspect other manufacturers so this too.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptop batteries degrade over time, even if you're not a road warrior. My $2800 powerbook's battery went from 3 hour charge to 1 in about 14 months. I can get a higher mAh replacement not from Apple for less. Now you're fscked into Apple or the highway across their line. I took my money elsewhere.

    22. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since there is no other mac hardware vendor,
      there will be no competition from a laptop
      with removable battery.

      the market will not decide the question.

      - erik

    23. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall people complaining a lot louder when they lost their floppy drives, LPT ports, RS232, ADB/PS2, etc. Nobody's stopping you from keeping your old laptop, getting one on ebay etc.

      I really don't buy into your argument there.

      The reason these losses were acceptable was that there were technologically superior replacements. Maybe some of these things were replaced to early, but none really allowed functionality that was no longer an option without them.

      A non-user-removable/replaceable battery isn't really technologically superior and doesn't replace lost functionality as CD's and USB drives did to floppies and PS/2 ports. There are advantages - less screw holes makes the case a little more attractive - but there is most certainly lost options as well. This isn't comparable.

    24. Re:Battery?! by stewbacca · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A non-removable battery would have completely destroyed my MBP.

      Oh, and you have the psychic foresight to remove a removable battery right BEFORE it explodes?

    25. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, it isn't that hard to make a user removeable battery. Just do it -- people want it. It is a freaking laptop!

      It's a good idea, but in all honesty, I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a laptop and a spare battery. I know I've never seen anyone use a laptop longer than 7-8 hours and need a spare battery because they're too far from a car or wall outlet.

      Eight hours is as long as most people spend at their daily job. If the battery's really that good, I don't think very many people are going to complain.

    26. Re:Battery?! by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it depends how much volume you use having to create a bay for the battery, with walls to cut it off from internal components, then a way to hold the battery in, so tabs on one side and a mechanism on the other to latch it in (or some other metod to hold it in there), then a study connection point for the terminals inside this bay.

      Now you have to engineer your removable battery to be more sturdy than an internal one only (since it has to be able to easily survive in a computer bag, or through repeated handling that an internal-only battery doesn't have to be so concerned with, since it has the external case to protect it and is not subject to removal and handling as often.

      Also now, you can create a very oddly-shaped battery to fill awkward spaces that would otherwise be wasted if you had to use a more conventional shape that is easy to remove (and more difficult to damage).

      So all together you have a battery that has a) less duplicated protective casing (battery itself and battery bay in laptop), b) capable of being moulded into odd shape to take advantage of extra space, c), no need for latches and other components to hold the battery in and enable it to interface with the DC board (you can just have it fixed inside the case with a smaller system, and just have a couple of flying leads and a simple IC plug to mate it to your power system - no need for quick release terminals.

      As soon as these things go on sale you know someone is going to take it apart and see what they've done inside the case. 28% more volume doesn't sound outlandish when you can dispense with a lot of the compromises you have to make when the computer itself has to be designed around the battery being removable - the battery might be really thin and sandwiched very intricately around all the components, which have now been able to spread out a little since there's no defined battery bay any more.

    27. Re:Battery?! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should look at the x-ray images they showed. You do indeed lose even more that 30% of your space. And this is pretty obvious too since the fill factor for cyllinders is on that order. They went to flat pack batteries.

      So they not only made the battery last longer but it also is thinner.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    28. Re:Battery?! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Not me. How much more room can they possibly get. Their plan is environmentally better I guess because of the swapping but having an extra charged battery would be nice to.

      I think it's more about the clean lines that Apple is trying to put in every thing they make than the excuse I have heard.

    29. Re:Battery?! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Being non-removable does not increase the capacity of a battery, nor should it give you an increased volume in any competent design.

      Yes it does. Optimizing for the insides of the unit, you can make the battery larger. Not having to worry about things like external contacts and external shielding, you can make the battery larger. 40% may be a stretch but you can get some gains.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    30. Re:Battery?! by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you? Or are you just parroting Apple's marketing bullshit?

      Look at how removable batteries in laptops work.
      Very little wasted space. Batteries of odd and custom shapes. Multiple batteries if necessary. Thin batteries, traditional batteries. If the change in in the outer casing gets you a 40% increase in volume, you must have a TINY battery.

      Here's a typical example pic:
      http://www.gadgetsandgreatdeals.com/image-files/laptop-battery-removal.gif

      The battery fits flush, and itself forms part of the outer casing. No wasted space making it removable. The internal well for the battery doubles as it's support. Non-removable batteries need the same support. Thin batteries need more of it, since they are longer.

      And last I checked, a cylinder was more efficient than a thing rectangular prism for surface area/volume. Packing wafers together in one external case is more efficient than packing cylinders together, but no where near enough to cover the previous deficit AND get you a 40% increase in capacity. In fact, the separation of cylinders in a typical li-ion battery pack provides greater resilience against heat. The lack of separation, and a separator material in a wafer-style thin battery will exacerbate heat issues as well.

      Either the new batteries won't get anywhere 1000 charges and may catch fire, or they won't be getting anywhere near 8 hours of useful charge.

      If Apple's battery claims prove to be accurate, I'll eat the nose off of my face.

    31. Re:Battery?! by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are complaining about adding RAM to a device that Apple sold with a warning that the RAM was not designed to be user-serviceable. It's not hard to do if you're used to working on laptops and small electronics, but don't complain about "un-openable" s a downside when you're buying a computer that's the size of a few CD boxes, and is very obviously a laptop without a screen, in a much smaller footprint - of course it's going to be hard to upgrade!

      You don;t see me complaining that the Macbook is "unopenable" - sure it's easier to upgrade the RAM on a Macbook than a Mini, but small devices are often hard to work on.

      Apple's design choices for some of their key products make then a pain in the ass to work on (have you ever taken apart a 12" Aluminium Powerbook? Changing out the optical drive on those bad boys is like something out of The Krypton Factor).

      They sell the "un-openable" devices (that are easy enough to work on if you have the skills for it) and they sell "openable" ones - like the Mac Pro, which are the very picture of easy access (no screws! all levers and toggles!). The old G4 boxes with the handles were a breeze to work on compared to PC cases of the time.

      If buying a computer that is difficult to work on is not for you then who am I to argue, but I feel I must point out the two sides to the Apple "accessibility" coin - for very small devices, it's just harder.

    32. Re:Battery?! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      I noticed that the mouse button wouldn't click due to the swelling, which continued after I removed it until it was twice as thick and leaking, and the "genius" bar appointment had to made a week in advance. Do the math, fanboy.

    33. Re:Battery?! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seriously? Here are a few:

      Yeah, seriously.

      1) Buy a new battery. Even their claimed 2-3x industry standard isn't more than a year or two if you use your laptop every day. I'm still using a three year old laptop which is perfectly fine even for software development.

      You are basing this on what? Idle speculation?

      2) Not having to send your laptop to Apple when they inevitably recall the battery

      Speculation?

      3) A long flight is much more than 8 hours. Try going to Australia or Hong Kong.

      Dude, seriously, if you are on that long of a flight, you should take some time to relax, have a few drinks and take a nap. Nobody should be expected to "work" on a plane the whole time. Unless if you are a chronic workaholic with no life, you should not be working through the flight and your employer should understand that.

      In the end, it's fairly irrelevant, because any serious business user won't be considering Apple products.

      Serious business users should not allow themselves to be at the beckoned call of their employers 24-7. Turn off your blackberries and close your notebooks for a while. Life is too short and your employer is not paying you extra to cut into your personal time anyway.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    34. Re:Battery?! by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That battery bay will exist for any battery. Unless Apple wants their batteries jostling around in there, breaking, disconnecting, short circuiting, etc.

      Removable batteries don't have to be sturdier anywhere other than the connector and one side of the outer casing. The material for any lithium-based battery pack is going to have to be resilient anyway to withstand the heat and pressure the battery will be subjected to in use. Removable batteries often use the stronger, base side of the pack as the actual base of the laptop, so there is no wasted space there. The only issue is the connector, which is minimal.

      If Apple is in fact wiring up a variety of batteries together in various tiny recesses of the laptop, then I expect tons of problems (related to the batteries and to the other components due to the heat). I doubt that this is the case, though, and I bet they've got 1 main battery, and maybe 1 or 2 small ones tucked away. It's not very efficient when you have to build the support and wiring for each battery in each location. You can do the same with traditional cylindrical cells (removable or not), but it's rarely done.

      I await real-world battery metrics, and stories of replacing them.

    35. Re:Battery?! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Screw the battery--I'd like a removable hard drive like the Dells. Unlike the Dells, though, you could probably actually get away with swapping drives in different models without having to reconfigure drivers and/or build disk images that will work when you take it from a 620 and put it in a 630. Probably wouldn't be able to easily swap drives between a Pro and Book though.

    36. Re:Battery?! by jamietre · · Score: 1

      You are basing this on what? Idle speculation?

      Having replaced batteries more than 1 or 2 times for a single, still useful laptop. Even if their claims are true the machine will outlast the battery.

      Speculation?

      History. https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/

      Dude, seriously, if you are on that long of a flight, you should take some time to relax, have a few drinks and take a nap. Nobody should be expected to "work" on a plane the whole time. Unless if you are a chronic workaholic with no life, you should not be working through the flight and your employer should understand that.

      That, my friend, would be why you are using an Apple, whereas serious business users use PCs. Because you think that it is up to you to tell consumers what they need and how they will use it, instead of the other way around.

    37. Re:Battery?! by chaim79 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes you do, you are not thinking of all that is needed to make a battery removable.

      • The battery itself needs a case.
      • There needs to be a reliable connection point between the battery and the laptop (requires more space)
      • The laptop frame needs to add support structures to compensate for the total lack of support coming from the battery area. (kinda like a convertible car)
      • The laptop needs an inside match to the battery case for it to fit in nicely, and to prevent dirt from entering the laptop case.
      • There has to be a latch system to secure the battery case to the laptop case.

      ALL OF THE ABOVE TAKE SPACE!!! Space that is free to be used for a bigger battery if the it is non-removable.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    38. Re:Battery?! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I saddens me that so many otherwise intelligent people will listen to such obvious B.S. and just buy it because Apple said so. These are the same people who honestly believe that Steve Jobs just has a "hormone imbalance" (reminds me of the "He died because his heart stopped" line, with the later reluctant admission "His heart stopped because he was shot").

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    39. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless these are the latest and greatest Li-ION which don't suffer this problem as much, LI-ion batteries lose about 10% of their capacity per year. So by year 2, that 6 hour will be more like 4, and you will wish you could swap batteries.

    40. Re:Battery?! by freemywrld · · Score: 1

      Yes but the same vendor makes laptops that DO have removable batteries. The market decides by the fact of whether anyone or no one buys the version with no removable battery.

    41. Re:Battery?! by itsdapead · · Score: 1, Troll

      There is no trade off. You make the battery removable. You might get a seam on your casing. Oh no. But you most certainly do not lose 28.5% of your space!

      Please tell me you're not an engineer.

      Its not just a seam: if the battery can be removed, people will remove it, so you have to ensure not only that the battery is robust (can't be crushed, the terminals can't be shorted) but that the computer with the battery removed is also robust (both mechanically, and proof against foreign objects getting in).

      Lets say the space available for the battery is 20cm x 10cm x 1.5cm giving a volume of 300 cm sq,

      Now make it removable. You have to put a rigid case around the battery and a wall around the battery compartment. Lets say that, together, they are 1mm thick - that loses you 2mm in every dimension.

      The volume available for the new battery is 18cm x 8 cm x 1.3 cm = 187.2 sq cm.

      Whups, there goes 40% of your battery volume!

      Plus, the bigger you make the battery, the thicker you have to make the case and the more removing it weakens the laptop.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    42. Re:Battery?! by bwalling · · Score: 1

      If it last for up to 8 hours, that should be more than enough even for a long flight across the Pacific or Atlantic.

      I fly between ATL and ICN frequently. It's 12-14 hours. Of course, Korean Air is nice enough to offer electrical outlets, so battery life is not relevant.

    43. Re:Battery?! by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      Ordinarily, I would complain about the battery, but I have to admit, in almost 10 years of owning Macbooks and Powerbooks, I have never bought a replacement battery.

      Which makes me wonder further just how much I should value a user-serviceable battery.

    44. Re:Battery?! by 808Lupine · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can lose space due to the requirements of making the thing User-Proof.
      It's not just an aesthetics issue with a seam in the case. When making the battery compartment accessible to the user, you must design, install, and test a whole suite of physical mechanisms and electronics that hold the battery securely, allow for easy removal/replacement, and keeps it safe from users doing things like getting dirt in the cavity and in the connectors, or incorrectly installing the battery,...all sorts of usability and safety issues.
      When making the battery removable, there are even MORE issues with safety, portability, etc. that come in to play. This requires the manufacturers to put safeguards in place that aren't necessarily required if the user will never be touching the thing. Building it in can make the battery cheaper to make, and possibly allow them to build it with more juice capacity in a smaller, lighter form.
      Don't get me wrong - I'd love the ability to change my battery when I like, and have a spare or two available for long sessions without a power outlet. But if I can double the life of the battery right off the bat, I might be willing to compromise.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines - Unknown
    45. Re:Battery?! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Apple only gives you what you want if what you want happens to be exactly what Steve wants. For some amazing reason, Apple's customers _do_ fit that description.

      (apologies to Henry Ford)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    46. Re:Battery?! by pohl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm just curious, have you watched the video where they talk about the design decisions that they made? Yes, there's a lot of fluff and annoying synth music, but it does appear that their engineering decisions and claims are reasonable. You may want to look at it so that you know exactly what you're denigrating here.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    47. Re:Battery?! by AgentGibbled · · Score: 1

      You picked a pretty poor example.

      Flight duration from Los Angeles to Tokyo is around 12 hours. While it's true that you probably won't be using your computer 100% of the time, I think it's a stretch to say that in all cases there's at least 4h where you won't. Also, that's by no means the longest flight a person can take.

      Furthermore, it's "up to" 8h. That usually means that if you have the screen brightness turned way down, have the wireless turned off, don't use the optical drive, avoid using the hard drive and don't do anything too processor-intensive, you might get 7h. Some of that could be true, but I'm going to bet that a really common use for a laptop on a long flight would be "watch a video". That will use one of the hard drive or optical drive, and definitely uses the CPU (possibly lots of it if the video is HD). So you probably don't actually get 8h of battery, even if you can amuse yourself some other way for the other 4h on the flight.

      But your poor trans-pacific flight example aside, there are plenty of reasons a person might need more untethered time than that. Anyone who needs to be outdoors all day comes to mind. My company uses laptops for field testing of survey equipment (though we don't use apple laptops, but that's another story).

      The reason that all of this is probably okay is that anyone who needs that sort of high-portability on a regular basis likely won't be buying a great big 17" laptop anyway. If I'm not mistaken, the more portable 15" ones *do* have a replaceable battery.

      So yes, if you buy the new 17" MBP you're sacrificing some portability because the battery can't be replaced. Probably you already knew that you were sacrificing some portability because you are buying a 17" laptop.

      Regardless, though, I can't really see how making it non-replaceable saves them that much space. Some space sure, but I have a feeling they're not being 100% truthful about the 40% savings nonsense. My suspicion is that the extra capacity gained is actually pretty negligible and they really did it for some other reason.

    48. Re:Battery?! by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Give me a reason why you would need a removable battery for anything other than having to swap a battery mid-flight from Japan to North America because your laptop battery only gives you a 4-5 hour window of use per charge. If it last for up to 8 hours, that should be more than enough even for a long flight across the Pacific or Atlantic.

      Because the 'max' battery life is rarely indicative of how some of us road warriors use a laptop. For example, my Thinkpad x61s with an 8 cell battery will go for about 6 hours trimmed up for full battery optimization. If I play a game, do development work, or push the system hard I get closer to two hours of battery. Pushing excel and minor dev work, something closer to four hours. I find that I spend almost as much time in the airport (where plugins are rare) as I do in the air. Not having a battery pack is just silly.

    49. Re:Battery?! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I've never carried two at a time so I could swap one when it was dead.

      And even if you had been in the habit of swapping batteries, maybe you wouldn't need to anymore. Assuming this battery gives anywhere close to the 8 hour advertised charge, that's a pretty long time to be able to go without power.

    50. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is a lot of extra plastic with that type of system. 1.5mm added to the case on each side (to make the bay) and 1.5mm added to the battery pack itself as a housing. That's 3mm all the way around.

      If the battery is 10cm x 20cm x 1cm, that's at least 12 cubic centimeters, which is a hell of a lot.

    51. Re:Battery?! by internic · · Score: 1

      If it makes the laptop smaller and lighter, some poeple (myself included) happily will give up a replaceable battery.
      ...
      Just because you don't like a fixed battery doesn't mean "people want it" or it was a bad decision.

      If it were some PC manufacturer we were talking about, I think you'd be completely correct. They've decided on something that they feel is most marketable, and if it doesn't suit you then you ought to buy from somewhere else. Unfortunately, since Macs use a proprietary OS that is (supposed to be) limited to Mac hardware, there's a significant lock-in factor. If people want to buy a computer from a different manufacturer, they will have to start using a new OS, which means learning that OS, buying and learning new software, etc. So, while I'm sure you're right that surely Apple has done the research and figured out this won't impact sales negatively overall, if you happen to be one of the Mac users for which this runs against your preferences or usage patterns you're simply SOL. You either have to like what Apple tells you to like, or you have to incur big pain the the butt (and very likely significant costs) of switching OSs.

      I think that Apple makes great hardware and software in many instances, but that is one of the main reasons I probably won't ever buy any of it.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    52. Re:Battery?! by Americano · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets say the space available for the battery is 20cm x 10cm x 1.5cm giving a volume of 300 cm sq [...]

      The volume available for the new battery is 18cm x 8 cm x 1.3 cm = 187.2 sq cm

      Math correction... 1cm = 10mm
      Original dimensions: 200mm x 100mm x 15mm = 300,000 cubic mm

      less 2mm in each dimension: 198mm x 98mm x 13mm = 252,252 cubic mm = 47,748 mm^3 lost, a loss of ~16%.

      Still considerable, but not 40%.

    53. Re:Battery?! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      My Dell 70 battery's case is less than 0.5mm thick, and about 0.1mm thick on at least one side. Even at 1.5mmx2 though, you're still only getting a 6% recovery of volume.

      It's a pissing match now; there's no way apple will back down.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    54. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your numbers are a bit off...

      20cm x 10cm x 1.5cm = 300 cubic cm

      1mm on all sides for the battery and another 1mm on all sides for the compartment would yield:

      19.8cm x 9.8cm x 1.3cm = 252.25 cubic cm

      still a loss of 15.9%...fairly significant

    55. Re:Battery?! by SubtleGuest · · Score: 1

      Just save your breath, sexconker. The reality distortion field is in full effect here. Nothing we can do.

    56. Re:Battery?! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Uh, we still have serial, parallel, PS/2, etc. ports on PC laptops/notebooks.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    57. Re:Battery?! by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from horrific SI prefix usage you're point is still mostly valid (you managed to subtract 2mm from 1.5cm correctly but then went with 2cm from the other two dimensions). If you do the calculations with taking 2mm from all dimensions you end up with a new volume of about 252 cu. cm (not sq. cm) which is about 84% of the previous volume.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    58. Re:Battery?! by eclectro · · Score: 1

      The market will decide whether that was a good trade.

      I expect we will see some of the sleekest, cool looking, great operating extension cords produced to date.
      The "icord."

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    59. Re:Battery?! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      You are complaining about adding RAM to a device that Apple sold with a warning that the RAM was not designed to be user-serviceable.

      No, he's complaining that apple sells a computer where RAM is not designed to be user-serviceable.

      Here's an example of the B.S. that he's talking about. My macbook pro (2007) had its motherboard fried, so I took it to an apple store. Now, I have work-related data on that laptop that I needed access to and that I couldn't afford to lose (I make incremental backups, but I had accomplished a lot of work the weekend before...the thing actually broke during a business trip). I know my way around computers, so it wasn't exactly a big deal for me to buy another drive and replace it before sending it in but I had to take the whole case apart to do it. Because you have to do that on this particular model, it's not a user serviceable part, and the apple "genius" said I had voided my applecare warranty and that they were going to charge me $2,000 for repairs. I told him to send it anyway and that I'd deal with that when the time came (because I know my rights, and I know they can't void the warranty for part replacement unless the damage is to the replaced part or done as part of the replacement, regardless of what they call user serviceable).

      The kicker? Before they send it back, they tell you to sign a work order. The order states, "you are responsible for making backups of any data contained within this computer and for removing any confidential data before sending the laptop in. We'll make an effort to save your data, but we reserve the right to erase the contents of all storage devices as part of the repair process." I'm signing a contract that says I'm responsible for safeguarding my data while their damn employees tell me I can't safeguard my data. There's no way to get at it with the motherboard fried without opening it up.

      Now you say that a smaller footprint of a laptop or a computer the size of a mini excuses it being hard to upgrade. I'll agree with you that in some cases that might be true, but that doesn't excuse intentionally making it hard. That hard drive you need to open the case of the macbook to get to? It's on the bottom left of the case, not on top of the motherboard or any other component. It would have cost them absolutely no extra space whatsoever to make a hole with a screw on the case right beneath it. There's no technical reason why they didn't do it, and if you don't believe me do a google search for the 2007 macbook pro internal layout and see for yourself. Similar thing with the mac mini...it's not a problem if it's difficult to get to the ram inside the computer because all the other components are in the way, but there's no excuse for making it difficult to open the case.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    60. Re:Battery?! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      What's on the other side of the battery hole and could that space be saved?

      What's the life of that battery vs the Apple battery?

      Sure Apple talks some real good marketing shit but it is a bit silly to think that a removable battery would take up the same amount of space as one within the system.

      I personally think heat will be a problem but Mac users don't own old Macs so this only has to last until next year. Clearly you don't know how to be a trend whore. ;)

    61. Re:Battery?! by rxan · · Score: 1

      But as an engineer you also have to look at not only the technical advances you are making, but also the tradeoffs to make those advances.

      I highly doubt that it's not possible to re-work the design of the components to leave a rectangular space for a removable battery. Saying that you HAD to make it non-user-removable in order to leave more space for the battery is not the engineering way -- you find a way to make it work.

      I'm guessing that making the battery this way cut down the engineering costs of the laptop so much that making it removable was less cost effective. But had they put in the effort to make the battery bigger and rework the components at the same time, this would have been a much better engineering decision as it would leave them with a better platform for the future. Now they will either have to keep this battery philosophy and keep pissing people off, or re-engineer everything again which is definitely not cost effective.

    62. Re:Battery?! by dangitman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Removable batteries don't have to be sturdier anywhere other than the connector and one side of the outer casing. The material for any lithium-based battery pack is going to have to be resilient anyway to withstand the heat and pressure the battery will be subjected to in u

      You clearly have no clue. Naked lithium batteries are very easily punctured. So, no, you don't just need sturdiness on "one side" of the battery casing. You need protection all around. It sounds as if you've never actually seen a removable laptop battery. They are well armored - they'd be getting sued for all kinds of accidents if they weren't. And that casing, and the connector, takes up a lot of space. I'm not sure what bizarro world you are living in where sturdy casing and connectors don't take up space.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    63. Re:Battery?! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I remove mine every other minute just in case. The downside being it needs to be plugged in at all times.

    64. Re:Battery?! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What "obvious B.S" are talking about?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    65. Re:Battery?! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Uh.. the battery you showed us looks like it has about a half inch of plastic all the way around, except the "bottom" (top in picture).

      You can't just count the battery case here. The socket is equally important.

      Surfaces covered by shells are always tricky, and the shell almost always occupies more volume than you would think just by looking, and you were only looking at *half* the shell.

      Not to mention that the battery you showed us almost certainly is filled with roughly AA size & shape generic cells, further reducing the actually used volume due to packing efficiency.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    66. Re:Battery?! by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Since I don't have the patience to wait a couple of years to see this, can you explain how?

    67. Re:Battery?! by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Dell said they were going to non-removable batteries, there would be s hit storm.

      In case you haven't noticed, there has been something of a "shit storm" when Apple announced it too. There tends to be some sort of shit storm whenever Apple announces anything. Dell's announcements tend to be greeted with a "meh," not the extreme reactions people have to Apple.

      Being non-removable does not increase the capacity of a battery, nor should it give you an increased volume in any competent design.

      Absolute nonsense. Tell me, what is this "competent design" that doesn't result in increased volume? Is the casing made of some miracle plastic that doesn't actually have any physical volume?

      Apple is selling bullshit pie and the fans are eating it up yet again.

      Where is the bullshit? You seem to be claiming that Apple is lying about their product's design. Do you have any proof of this, or any reason they would lie about it?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    68. Re:Battery?! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The video, had you watched it, shows screws on the bottom so I suspect there will be no prying involved.

    69. Re:Battery?! by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Math correction... 1cm = 10mm

      Oops :-) How embarrasing.

      Let that be a lesson to us: don't do math with legs crossed: go to bathroom first, re-read post, then click submit. Oh, and don't mix units - good job I wasn't building a Mars lander :-).

      Mathematical fsckups aside: making a battery removable means you have to build a double wall, with enough clearance to get the battery in and out, plus connectors, latches etc. and small linear decreases in length have large impact on volume;

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    70. Re:Battery?! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You have to "package" the battery just the same.

      No, you don't. The laptop itself is the enclosure for the naked cells. A removable battery needs to be encased in plastic for safety reasons. It's astounding the amount of ignorance being displayed on slashdot about basic engineering.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    71. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that obsession about a flat laptop anyway? This thing is huge 17", it is not like it could fit in your pockets. You still have to carry it in some kind of container. What are you doing with the space you gain by buying a super flat laptop? Add some more porn mags into your bag?
      I prefer a removable battery.

    72. Re:Battery?! by R4nneko · · Score: 1

      I wish I had your luck. My powerbook's battery got so bad that it had a max charge of less than 20 minutes, before it was forunately replaced under a battery recall. I replaced one MacBook Pro battery under warranty because it had started to lose charge, and the replacement has already dropped to about 30% of max charge (with less than 60 complete charge cycles). The extra battery I bought because of I trip I was headed on is still going strong, but is less than 6 months old. Note that the MacBook Pro is from 2007. I really wish I had invested in AppleCare now.

    73. Re:Battery?! by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I really wish I had invested in AppleCare now.

      They gave you a defective product, recalled it, replaced it with another defective product, and you're wringing your hands about how you could have given them even more money... RDF indeed...

    74. Re:Battery?! by R4nneko · · Score: 1

      If I had Applecare, I could continue to go back to them regarding the battery rather that if I chose to pursue it heading through the complaints departments and dealing with that process.

      Also, the machine with the battery that was recalled is not the machine I'm wishing I had grabbed applecare for.

    75. Re:Battery?! by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Do they?

      Clearly non-removable batteries has done nothing to hurt iPod sales despite the constant complaints here.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    76. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos... and yet sales took off of the new laptop.

      The sales numbers took off because it was a new laptop model; unless the thing is a fucking Edsel, that's what happens every time. Also, I would bet some iterations of the sales numbers include people like my friend who bought a new MacBook and traded it in for a used one after he found out it didn't have Firewire. Dropping Firewire was a stupid decision, it's just that it wasn't terrible enough of one to make a dent in sales obvious to laypeople.

      Apple's history under Jobs is a long series of drastic decisions, and they make almost as many bad decisions as they do good ones.

    77. Re:Battery?! by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      My Dell 70 battery's case is less than 0.5mm thick, and about 0.1mm thick on at least one side.

      No wonder Dell has problems with exploding batteries, you can puncture one of those with a fingernail.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    78. Re:Battery?! by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...nor should it give you an increased volume in any competent design."

      Nice qualifier. Wrong, but nice nonetheless. A removable LiPo battery needs a rather substantial case, as throwing raw lithium cells into your briefcase to rattle around as they please is... well, let's just say that it's a no-no. Further, you now need a compartment (back, sides) in which to contain said battery, as exposing raw circuit boards to users also tends to be contra-indicated.

      With the container and compartment gone, you're now free to play with the shape of the cells, snugging them in and around other components, and making better use of the available nooks and crannies.

      A few extra millimeters here, a few centimeters there, and volume-wise things start to add up pretty quickly. A battery 5cm x 10cm x 1cm is 50 cubic cms. Gain just an extra half centimeter in each dimension (5.5*10.5*1.5), and you've got 86.6 cubic cms... a 42% increase.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    79. Re:Battery?! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      It is hard if you want to extend the battery life to 8 hours and not increase the size. Not everyone needs a replaceable battery, believe it or not.

    80. Re:Battery?! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever designed a laptop before? One that has to comply with laws and regulations etc?

    81. Re:Battery?! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      In fact, the separation of cylinders in a typical li-ion battery pack provides greater resilience against heat. The lack of separation, and a separator material in a wafer-style thin battery will exacerbate heat issues as well.

      Unless you have some real world examples or stats to back that up, it's meaningless. I'm sure it's true, but is there enough difference to matter? I use tightly packed LiPos in my RC heli, and that pushes the battery's thermal limits far more than a laptop. I've never read of someone adding more space between their cells to keep the packs cooler.

      And if you can't spot the wasted space in the image you linked to, then no wonder you think Apple is BSing.

    82. Re:Battery?! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There seem to be a lot of geeks who like apples software (personally I preffer linux but I can see the attraction) and would like to be able to buy an ordinary desktop that can run it. Apple however does not sell an ordinary desktop.

      Some of them build hackintoshish's because of that but the lack of support and the fact you are violating the EULA would probablly put a lot of people off doing that in any environment other than thier own home.

      So for the user that doesn't want a laptop it comes down to a choice between

      * mac mini, awkward to open, no expansion room (all upgrades must be replacements rather than additions). Made of laptop parts and relatively low end ones at that (the fastest CPU speed availible in a mini matches the slowest CPU speed availible in a macbook).
      * imac, midrange desktop specs and parts crammed into the back of a monitor. Also awkward to open. No expansion room (all upgrades must be replacements rather than additions). Graphics upgrades requires weird cards that are almost unobtainable.
      * mac pro: a bulky and expensive workstation (though undoutablly nice if you actually need 8 cores and/or a shitload of ram)
      * xserve: IMO the nicest machine in the range but even more expensive than the mac pro

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    83. Re:Battery?! by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If you posted something negative about a company, does that mean troll? Not if it's true.

    84. Re:Battery?! by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously, if you are on that long of a flight, you should take some time to relax, have a few drinks and take a nap. Nobody should be expected to "work" on a plane the whole time. Unless if you are a chronic workaholic with no life, you should not be working through the flight and your employer should understand that.

      New York - Sydney or London - Sydney is a good 20 hour flight (trust me, I've done it too many times to care for). A "few drinks and a nap" isn't exactly something you can knock off a whole day in the air with. Let's say you work 5, 6 hours - wifi off, low brightness, minimum disk spin, you can manage that on the batteries now. Then you take a break, but can't find anything of note on the entertainment system to watch - so decide to pull out a DVD or a movie already on your drive, since this thing is 17in after all. With a fixed battery, you're bound by the remaining time - with a swappable battery, you get another 4 hours out of it.

      I think the point here is that had apple put the effort into making swappable batteries that gave you 6 hours, say, that would be better than a fixed battery that lasts 8.

      Not taking away the acheivement of getting 8 freaking hours out of a 17in laptop, but the flexibility of swappable batteries is a more useful feature than the longer timespan.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    85. Re:Battery?! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      And now you're trying to justify wanting to give them more money. Brilliant.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    86. Re:Battery?! by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos... and yet sales took off of the new laptop. That feature excluded that laptop from my consideration, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision for them.

      Actually, I believe Apple removed it so that it would be a unique feature on their Macbook Pro line, which would cause all the people who needed firewire to have to purchase their highest end laptops and not the lower tier products. The Nvidia 9600 mobile chipset that both the Macbook and Macbook Pro laptops use has no firewire capabilities built into the chipset. In previous Intel chipset motherboard, firewire was included as a chipset function. It takes an additional chip to be added to their motherboard design to add the firewire feature that the Pro line uses.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    87. Re:Battery?! by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the space occupied by the rest of the air in the laptop takes space. Is not that removable batteries take space, it's more like you have to limit yourself to a square accessible space instead of filling every corner inside the laptop. Which would take around 40%, take or less. Even more on a 17" laptop, where there is a lot of emptiness inside...

    88. Re:Battery?! by Maserati · · Score: 1

      > But if I can double the life of the battery right
      > off the bat, I might be willing to compromise.

      This is exactly why I think the no-removeable battery thing is going to blow over very quickly. I've known a lot of people who carried a spare battery. I don't think I've run into a user in the wild that habitually carried two spares (out of 350-400 laptop users supported throughout my career). So by doubling the capacity you're taking care of damn near everyone, including the people who care enough to carry a spare. If the battery has a better life too, then you come out ahead of carrying a spare. If you don't carry a spare, then you just double your battery life and it's a big win.

      Remember, people screamed when Apple dropped the floppy drive from the iMac and the keyboard from their smartphone.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    89. Re:Battery?! by R4nneko · · Score: 1

      Yep, because it would be make things more convenient and easy, I agree it's a stupid situation, but I'm lazy.

      Of course, what I need to do because I didn't get Applecare is to take up this issue with Apple.

    90. Re:Battery?! by Maserati · · Score: 3, Informative

      To back this up, the video clearly shows the volume gained by not making the battery removable. I've taken screenshots of schematics a laptop with a removable and with a built-in battery. They increased battery volume by 40%.

      screenshots here:

      http://gallery.me.com/mllaneza/100021

      Ok, I haven't seen a me.com gallery recently, I'm kinda impressed.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    91. Re:Battery?! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      By making the battery non-removable, they gained 40% more room for a bigger, longer-lasting battery.

      Looks like Mr Jobs's reality distortion field has spread to his customers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    92. Re:Battery?! by MrMickS · · Score: 1

      If you want a removable battery, then don't buy an apple. Buy a Dell, since they have that nifty system where you can plug a battery in to the drive bay giving you two batteries. That also means you can have a big stack of batteries and you can keep on hot-swapping them all day long, since you can hot-swap either of the batteries without losing power.

      I suspect other manufacturers so this too.

      My experience with Dells isn't recent. However I did find that the batteries on them stopped holding any sort of charge after a year or so. On that basis they *needed* to have a removable battery.

      My experience with Apple laptops would say that they hold a decent charge for about twice as long.

      This could all have changed.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    93. Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me itsdapead is not an engineer.

    94. Re:Battery?! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Hard to upgrade isn't the question. RAM, Batteries, Hard Drives...These things are nominally user serviceable. But not for Mac, not on the majority of their devices. And even the ones that can be opened easily have issues. Try to replace internal components on a mac tower without buying those components from Apple.

      The sibling post is exactly right. Sending all your data to Apple to get them to replace a battery (or RAM) is ridiculous.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    95. Re:Battery?! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You think it would be hard to install a standard, off the shelf hard drive into a mac tower without buying them from Apple? Or the standard, off the shelf, industry standard RAM (into riser cards that are really easy to remove and swap out RAM sticks)? Or a PCI/PCI Express card that fits into a totally standard slot on the logic board, and fits with no need for screws?

      The only thing that might give you trouble is the graphics card because you need one with a Mac-specific firmware on it, but you don;t have to buy that from Apple, or the PSU which is replaceable in a PC tower but may need service work for the Mac Pro (I believe they changed the design to make it possible for a home user to change the PSU at one of the revisions, but I can't remember). The other items in the case are specific to the Mac Pro and are no different from any other proprietary case (like brackets, widgets etc), which includes the heat sinks and fans, since the logic board and cpu assemblies are not changable like a PC motherboard, if you need new ones, you can get them from Apple. The front and rear fan assemblies for the Mac Pro I had were user serviceable and were easy to put in and out (no screws - they were push fit, and guided by plastic rails).

      The SATA hard drive was a standard model, that I replaced with a bigger one from a white box store. There's space for more drives in the case, and each bay has a little caddy ready to accept your standard drive. When you've installed it into thise caddy it slides into the Mac Pro and locks into place with no need for screws. There's no cables, since these are built into the caddy, with the SATA connector on the front that docks with the tower once the caddy is locked into place.

      I installed a third party gigabit ethernet card (no need for screws) and a third party HDMI card from Decklink (again, no screws) in about 10 minutes, including the time it took to open the external case (no screws - it just has a handle on the back that you lift from flush that unlocks all the internal latches so you can easily remove the side).

      Your post makes it sound like you've never even looked inside a Mac Pro before, let alone worked on one.

      Regarding sending all your data off to Apple because you need it repaired. Well, I'm going to say it but if your data is that important to you, you can just restore it from the backup you made. If the data that is trapped on the broken machine is life and death, then you've either been extremely unlucky (work you've done that is irreplaceable since the last backup, or b) you don;t backup enough.

      If you carry mission-critical, life or death, can't lose this or the world ends, data on your laptop then you really have to back it up on creation (who knows when you might damage the laptop, lose the laptop, or the laptop might break down). The same applies to your desktop machine. If your data is that important, you need to back it up so that if your 5 year old gives you a birthday present while you're away by washing your computer in the dishwasher, you'll be able to restore your data and carry on on another machine.

    96. Re:Battery?! by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      The horse shit is all yours. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      There is a big tradeoff. Making an external battery bay, a battery casing, and an interface between the two takes quite a bit more plastic, metal, wiring, form factor constraint, and other crap than just bolting the wrapped cells (in this case li-poly bricks) to the case from the inside. Not to mention testing.

      But then again, you don't sound like you've ever been exposed to lawsuits because your batteries were setting the users' laptops on fire. You've never had to design a laptop case or put it through testing, have you?

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    97. Re:Battery?! by Refrag · · Score: 1

      It's hard to make a user removable battery and get an 8 hour battery life out of it due to space constraints. And studies have shown that very few people use spare notebook batteries contrary to your "people want it" belief.

      http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    98. Re:Battery?! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Actually, 0.5mm, better known in these parts as 0.020", is a pretty decently thick if stiffened properly. It also, I should add, has an extra mm on the exterior side, which forms the bottom of the computer. There's more space "wasted" in this form factor due to the use of cylindrical Li-Ion cells than case material.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    99. Re:Battery?! by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      > Do you [have facts to back up your claim that the original post had no facts and was spouting bullshit]? Or are you just parroting Apple's marketing bullshit?

      Yes, he does have facts to back up that claim. The fact is that your original post contained no factual content, merely an erroneous, poorly-thought-out opinion with no factual backing.

      So his question still stands: do you have any facts to back up your stupid claim?

    100. Re:Battery?! by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      So your whole argument is based on the concept that YOU cannot think of how to make a non-user-removable battery bigger than a user-removable battery?

      On the one side of the debate, we have you, with an obvious sense of self-importance and the belief that if you can't think of a way to improve on something, then nobody can. On the other side of the debate, we have a multi-billion dollar company with a great incentive to improve their products in new and innovative ways, and with dedicated hardware and software engineering teams in the thousands.

      It's not clear to me why you think anyone with a brain in their head would side with you on this one.

    101. Re:Battery?! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Adding a new hard drive should be a given for any device. With a tower, I should be able to make significant changes: graphics, sound, yes motherboard and processor. I've had trouble with Mac servers because they arbitrarily decided, in the firmware, to ditch certain sizes of SATA drives in favor of the ones from their site which came complete with a 200% markup.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    102. Re:Battery?! by kelnos · · Score: 1

      No, he's complaining that apple sells a computer where RAM is not designed to be user-serviceable.

      Why? If you don't like it, don't buy it. If other people don't care, they'll buy it, and Apple will make money. If enough people do care, and don't buy it, Apple will lose money, notice, and change their tune. I really don't see why so many people are up in arms about this.

      I know my way around computers, so it wasn't exactly a big deal for me to buy another drive and replace it before sending it in but I had to take the whole case apart to do it.

      Well, you certainly had the option of buying any number of other laptops where this wouldn't have been the case. But you chose to but a Mac laptop, and, well, that's what you got. Deal with it and quit whining.

      The Apple rep stating you violated your warranty by replacing the HD is a separate issue. He's a moron, but that has nothing to do with Apple's design choices.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    103. Re:Battery?! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Do you? Or are you just parroting Apple's marketing bullshit?

      Neither - but you'll notice that I made no claims in my comment, so attacking me on those grounds is pretty damn stupid of you.

      Also, it's nice to see someone replied to you and shot your whole argument to shit. I always like when a loudmouth asshole gets ripped to pieces by the masses.

    104. Re:Battery?! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that as you make the battery thinner, you'll lose more volume to the casing, as the most efficient shape would be a cube (well, actually a sphere, but there would be other problems with a spherical battery). So part of the reason why Apple gains so much by going the internal battery route is because they insist on making their laptops so thin, so in that sense it's really a problem they brought onto themselves (I really don't see the appeal of a thin 17" laptop myself).

    105. Re:Battery?! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If Dell said they were going to non-removable batteries, there would be s hit storm.

      Why? For the most part, people would just shrug go and buy a HP/Acer/Lenovo/Toshiba/whatever. That's the nice thing about having competition around.

    106. Re:Battery?! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Why? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

      I agree, we're not on separate sides here. It's not like any of us are saying legislation should be passed to prevent apple from doing this. We're explaining what we don't like about it. If somebody asks me, "should I buy a product from apple" I'll explain the things I like and the things I don't like about them and let them make their own decision.

      Well, you certainly had the option of buying any number of other laptops where this wouldn't have been the case. But you chose to but a Mac laptop, and, well, that's what you got. Deal with it and quit whining.

      I'm supposed to only buy perfect products, or to be happy with every single aspect of every single product I own? When I bought my laptop I examined the pros and the cons. Uneasy access to harddrive was in the con column. On the other hand, I know my way around computers, so I figured I could (and did) manage, so that con didn't have enough weight to offset the pros.

      The Apple rep stating you violated your warranty by replacing the HD is a separate issue. He's a moron, but that has nothing to do with Apple's design choices.

      I'm just saying this never would have been an issue if the hard drive was officially a user-replaceable part (like RAM in my model is).

      I don't know why you consider a legitimate complaint whining. I'm happy with the laptop in general, I'm unhappy with this aspect of it. The reason given for the design choice I'm unhappy about is that they're saving space, which is untrue. They're purposefully trying to make certain replacements harder so that their customers are more likely to buy parts from them / have them perform routine replacements. These things add up, and the next time I make a laptop purchase the cons just might overwhelm the pros, and I'll go for something else, just as you've suggested.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  6. We're being weened of MacWorld by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad to see Apple stepping away from a massive release of new products every January. While it was exciting from a geek perspective, it was awfully timed. Introducing a slate of cool new gadgets just after Christmas was a marketing nightmare for Apple - hundreds of thousands of new iPod owners would be upset to learn that their new player was suddenly "last year's model," and many other Apple enthusiasts would simply put off their purchases until after the Christmas season in anticipation of "one more thing" in January. That can't have been good news for retailers who ramp up inventory in the months leading up to xmas. Now, Apple has more control over their release cycle. They can keep their products under wrap until they're ready to unveil them to the world, and can stagger releases for maximum coverage.

    1. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's kinda like E3. So much pressure to show the best off at that event only to get a load of bullshot. Now, no more half-promises. Your game can be showed off as you want it. No need to razzle-dazzle at the trade show.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    2. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In fact, all the important announcements will come direct from Apple PR events, probably on this new schedule:

      April for new Mac Pros and iMacs
      June for new iPhones (during WWDC)
      September for new iPods
      October for new MacBooks

    3. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I suspect Apple's decision to downplay MacWorld in the future has less to do with a marketing strategy and more to do with a cover story for Steve Jobs' health problems and sudden absence from the scene. They could say "MacWorld is still important to us" and "Steve Jobs won't be there this year" at the same time and not arouse even more suspicion than his weight loss and mysterious absence from Apple HQ has already produced.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you get this schedule from? I'd think they'd like to introduce new laptops around the beginning of August, in time for college students' parents to get the new model before the start of school.

    5. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Evangelion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, no.

      One of the unintended consequences of releasing a new model is that people will then proceed to buy up last years model, as the remaining stock has probably been reduced in price.

      They do want people to buy their laptops for September -- they would just rather they buy them at the older, higher price if possible.

    6. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by dishpig · · Score: 1

      February 29 for Mac Minis

    7. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary: While the release of new products at MacWorld was exciting for me, my enjoyment was tempered knowing that a corporation was struggling to pull everything together over Christmas, and making it hard on retailers. Now, Apple can have even more control over it's release cycle and get more bang for its product development buck. Makes me so happy I want to cry!

      WTF??

    8. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If they handled things properly, by reducing the price of "last year's iPod" in the 1-2 months leading up to the update, and then introducing "next year's iPod" at a higher price for a couple months, the whole thing would work itself out:

      People with an older model would feel good because they got a deal, and people with the new model would feel good because the got it before everyone else.

      Their policy of "don't change anything, not even the price" for the whole life of an electronic product (when that shelf life can be almost two years.. Mac Mini..) is.. kind of annoying. It's like they aren't interested in people who are at all concerned with value.

      Charge a premium.. fine. Charge the same price for an entire moore cycle? Wha??

      But.. Complain though I might.. people still pay that price!

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      You would prefer that Apple's product development teams to work overtime over Christmas with less control over their release cycle? You must work Microsoft. WTF, indeed. :)

    10. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're absolutely right; I generally buy last year's model myself. I just wanted to provide a hypothetical counterpoint to MtViewGuy's proposed schedule, because for all I can see, he pulled it directly from thin air. I'm very curious to know whether it has any real basis. It would be great if I knew approximately when to expect certain new releases from Apple.

    11. Re:We're being weened of MacWorld by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      It was last year's model the instant you bought it.

  7. slashvermacment. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is extremely important that Slashdot apprise us of every new product coming from Apple Corporation, in near-realtime fashion.

    Please slashdot, tell us more about Steve Jobs' health, Apple Corporation mythology, and Mac purchasing opportunities!

    1. Re:slashvermacment. by DigitalisAkujin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is extremely important that Slashdot apprise us of every new product coming from Apple Corporation, in near-realtime fashion.

      Please slashdot, tell us more about Steve Jobs' health, Apple Corporation mythology, and Mac purchasing opportunities!

      Usually I'd agree with you but this news about DRM is pretty important because it completely changes the dynamic of the music industry in relation to the Internet considering iTunes recently surpassed Walmart in music sales. That is clearly stuff that matters and if you can't see that you're geek license should be revoked on your way out.

    2. Re:slashvermacment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you can't use "you're" properly, then your license should also be revoked.

    3. Re:slashvermacment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK

    4. Re:slashvermacment. by DigitalisAkujin · · Score: 1

      your*

    5. Re:slashvermacment. by grub · · Score: 1


      Please slashdot, tell us more about Steve Jobs' health,

      I've heard Steve Jobs has prostate issues. Have you noticed a difference in the taste as of late?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:slashvermacment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you speak the Queen's English, then your licence should also be revoked.

    7. Re:slashvermacment. by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      your*

      Cute

    8. Re:slashvermacment. by DigitalisAkujin · · Score: 1

      ..|.. cuter ;)

  8. Re:Darn... no iPhone update by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Yeah...I was hoping for the announcement of the 32G iPhone....

    Oh well, guess I'll go buy one in a week or two, since no upgrade came for it, and I don't wanna wait till summer for the next possible upgrade.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. 17" Macbook by manekineko2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad. If I'm going to lug around the weight of a 17" I feel like a proper keyboard with keypad is a must, especially since almost all of the other brands have no trouble fitting one in.

    The weight on this thing is mighty impressive though, I'm not familiar with any 17" laptop that is only 6.6 lbs. Of course, I'm not sure if it's worth the trade-off of not having a removable battery.

    1. Re:17" Macbook by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 4, Informative

      " simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad. "

      Probably because the number pad prevents the QWERTY keyboard from being centered.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    2. Re:17" Macbook by Altus · · Score: 1

      the battery trade off is between having a removable battery and having a battery that lasts 8 hours (according to apple). If they really have managed to get that much more life out of a battery by making it non removable (saving a lot of space) then that's a much more tempting trade off.

      I might trade the removable battery for 35% more battery life.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:17" Macbook by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      The weight on this thing is mighty impressive though, I'm not familiar with any 17" laptop that is only 6.6 lbs. Of course, I'm not sure if it's worth the trade-off of not having a removable battery.

      It has a potential 8 hours of operation per charge. That is more than enough for basically anyone. Even if you are "working" on a 10 hour flight, you are not going to be "working" for all of those 10 hours. So this not only saves you on weight with the laptop itself but also not having to carry around additional batteries to compensate for the short usage per charge.

      I'd say that it is an acceptable trade off since the longer life basically eliminates the need for a battery swap in 99% of possible situations.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    4. Re:17" Macbook by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Troll

      I simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad.

      Dude, it's a Mac. Mac users can barely type -- they sure as hell don't need a number pad!

    5. Re:17" Macbook by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It all depends whether that is 8 hours idle, 8 hours under max load or somewhere in between (and if so where in between)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:17" Macbook by db32 · · Score: 1

      I imagine it has to do with the speaker/ambient light sensor placement. Personally I don't understand 17" laptops. The weight is typically pretty high and I have had so many battles trying to shove them into backpacks that I refused to ever purchase one myself. Weighing in at 6.6lbs makes it seem a bit anorexic, but that certainly would be a welcome improvement. Still the dimenions of the thing would make it a pain in the ass to carry around. With Apple gear you also get into the realm of do you really want to carry something that expensive around with you when you deal with the larger laptops.

      On the battery...the ONLY laptops I have ever had to travel with extra batteries were for 17inch models because they sucked down so much damned juice so quickly. If this battery really does have the life they claim there really isn't a whole lot of reason for a removable battery. The only time I have ever had to screw with a laptop battery is when the shitty design HP battery failed. It was under warranty, but it still took me 3 damned months for them to send me a replacemnt (first they sent a power cable, then the ac adapter, THEN the battery). I was ready to fly to india with the bad battery to beat the support guy to death just to get it through his head that I when I said battery I meant battery. Of the 6 or 7 laptops I have gone through over the years(counting personal as well as work) over the years the HP was the only one that became such a total failure with the battery. Of the many more laptops in my organization I haven't seen any of them go completely bad either. That much of a reduction in weight and longer battery life definitely seems worth the trade off of a removable battery. Removable batteries are nice, but seriously, how often is it really necessary?

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    7. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But interestingly, there is a number pad app that works wirelessly from your iPhone or iPod Touch.

    8. Re:17" Macbook by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You can buy a USB numpad (or wireless, even) for like $30 at Best Buy. Why is that your issue?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason they do it is so that they keyboard is centered in relation to the screen. Not saying the Apple way is the only, or the best way, just telling you why they do it.

      I've used 17" laptops with a full keyboard including number pad. It was kind of weird to get used to the keys being off-center from the screen.

    10. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, that's a problem easily solved. Just split the number pad up and place it horizontally above the rest of the keyboard (well, maybe not above everything....you could squeeze it in below the function keys).

    11. Re:17" Macbook by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      " simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad. "

      Probably because the number pad prevents the QWERTY keyboard from being centered.

      Exactly. In order to add a number pad on the right side, you'd have to shift the whole keyboard to the left. That means for normal typing, if the laptop is on your desk you're shifting the whole laptop (including the screen) to the right to compensate, or if it's on your lap where it has to be balanced, you're shifting your hands to the left which is even worse for your wrists.

      Yes, it should be possible to add a skinny little number pad thing on the right without moving the rest of the keyboard, but if it's not full size it's of limited usefulness (you can already use NumLock to make certain letters behave like a number pad, which is also of limited usefulness).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:17" Macbook by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It was under warranty, but it still took me 3 damned months for them to send me a replacemnt (first they sent a power cable, then the ac adapter, THEN the battery). I was ready to fly to india with the bad battery to beat the support guy to death just to get it through his head that I when I said battery I meant battery.

      Fortunately, I've never had this kind of experience when calling Apple support. Also, Apple-authorized service providers are fairly plentiful in the US (worldwide links here), so in most areas it's not too much trouble to take the machine in and show the problem to somebody who can fix it (obviously there are exceptions to this).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    13. Re:17" Macbook by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a familiar refrain from people who don't believe anything can be wrong with Apple equipment. Just by external X.

      External X is not the same as built-in X. It's one more piece of kit to cart around, it's one more piece of kit to buy, and it's one more ugly piece of kit hanging off the side of your computer.

      The space is right there for the full numberpad. Basically every other 17" laptop has them, because they have the space for it. The weight difference must be negligible. There's just no reason in my opinion from a good design standpoint not to have it.

    14. Re:17" Macbook by db32 · · Score: 1

      I have called Apple support once. 10.5.5 update dorked up iCal. I spoke with someone who's native language was english, he forwarded me on to the engineers, they gathered some info, and said they would look into it. I figured meh, brushoff, but at least they were polite and it was a short call because I didn't spend 45 minutes trying to explain technical details of the problem across a language barrier to someone who is just reading a script off a screen. A few days later they called me back... I was stunned. This was consumer level stuff. I expect this kind of treatment when I am calling people like Cisco for expensive enterprise stuff.

      So after the many years of having to deal with HP or Dell or Microsoft support and speaking to a guy who claims "I am in the USA" and that his name is "Mike" and receiving NO help whatsoever, or getting the openenly hostile treatment from Microsoft I was completely sold on Apple support. Even beyond the value I give to the better design of their laptops, the value of being treated like a valued customer instead of some schmuck that already paid or at worst a criminal is well worth the extra money.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    15. Re:17" Macbook by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, and I take it into consideration.

      It's never bothered me before on other brand 17" laptops having to move right hand more towards the middle, but different strokes for different folks I suppose.

      Is there actually a contingent out there of people that have used the offset keyboard with numpad and dislike it though, or is this just apologism where a reason is invented for every complaint, with or without merit, and then the complaint summarily dismissed?

    16. Re:17" Macbook by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      They should probably replace the entire keyboard with a wheel or something! ;)

    17. Re:17" Macbook by Eil · · Score: 1

      I simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad. If I'm going to lug around the weight of a 17" I feel like a proper keyboard with keypad is a must, especially since almost all of the other brands have no trouble fitting one in.

      The numeric keypad is exclusively designed to make numbers easier to enter into a computer. Dealing with numbers is (generally) work. When people see a numeric keypad on a keyboard, they think "oh no, work!"

      Apple's strategy is to make their products appear hip and cool, a machine to play on and be creative with. Not something to do actual boring work on.

      Crazy theories aside, lack of a numeric keypad was one of the main things holding me back from a 17" Powerbook years ago. As a sysadmin and geek, I tend to enter a lot of IPs via the numeric keypad.

    18. Re:17" Macbook by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Actually, and 8 hour life implies about 7.5 hours of maximum working time, as you'll need to shut down with a safe margin of power. It's also at some reduced functional level generally. The mystery is how they got the energy density up without crippling the processor(s) by significantly underclocking/undervolting them to provide a lower wattage drain on the system. Apple does not use magical parts that use less energy when it comes to the core items (nvidia/intel graphics, intel processors, COTS drives and displays). They can tweak the rest of the system, but the real power hogs are still going to control.

      6.6lbs is pretty nice, though, as that's what my 15.4" dell workstation weighs (though it's a bit old; almost 4 years), and most 17 inchers are north of 8 lbs.

      My biggest question about the battery life is how it compares with real world / real work. I would presume discrete graphics is a must (who does onboard on a high end laptop?), as is bluetooth and wireless network on 100%, and screen brightness at max. If that's the 7 hours, it'll dual boot into XP/Vista, and can dock with my desktop monitor/kbd/speakers/network/usb hub I'll put one on order. That would be a sweet system for $2700.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    19. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people don't need a number pad. if you do, you can get an external keypad or keyboard. it's a simple profitability issue.

    20. Re:17" Macbook by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      "Is there actually a contingent out there of people that have used the offset keyboard with numpad and dislike it though, or is this just apologism where a reason is invented for every complaint,"

      I'd call it a reasonable hypothesis based on Apple/Jobs' well-known maximally anal-retentive nature. The numeric keypad is not an unreasonable request, but Apple probably doesn't like the aesthetics.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    21. Re:17" Macbook by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I simply cannot fathom why Apple keeps making these things without a number pad.

      Because 99% of potential users have no use whatsoever for one, so it's an expensive albatross just to support the remaining 1%. I'm not saying that numeric keypads aren't useful for some very specific things, but very few people every actually do those things. You're a CPA? Sure, you'll want one! Everyone else? Not likely.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a numeric keypad. It's in the same position as the one on the IBM 024 keypunch was. In standard proof format.

    23. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen -this kills me when using ProTools because there are many keyboard command key combinations that involve the numeric pad.

      However, Digidesign are partly to blame for this as they have not taken into account the fact that modern laptops can be used for decent music production these days and many of them omit the numeric keypad.

      I'm just sayin'

    24. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. In order to add a number pad on the right side, you'd have to shift the whole keyboard to the left. That means for normal typing, if the laptop is on your desk you're shifting the whole laptop (including the screen) to the right to compensate, or if it's on your lap where it has to be balanced, you're shifting your hands to the left which is even worse for your wrists.

      Yes. Our server rack consoles use full ~105-key keyboards, which are necessarily centered with the display. To use one, you have to shift your wrists to the left, which feels uncomfortable and slows you down. Because of this, I prefer to access the servers remotely.

    25. Re:17" Macbook by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The space is right there for the full numberpad. Basically every other 17" laptop has them, because they have the space for it.

      Are you sure? It may look like it externally, but most of the space taken up by a keyboard/keypad is internal space. Not only the space for the keys, but also any wiring, and any reinforcement or mounts in the chassis.

      The problem with the suggestions of "why can't they add this" is that everybody has their own thing they want added. So, they add a numberpad for you, a card reader slot for someone else, removable battery, thumbprint reader. Something has to give, so you end up with something bulky like the typical 17" notebook from other manufacturers. And it's easy to lose focus trying to be everything to everybody, and you end up with a situation like the annoying myriad of variations on the Performa product line.

      Doing something because "everybody else does it" is not always good reasoning.

      External X is not the same as built-in X. It's one more piece of kit to cart around, it's one more piece of kit to buy, and it's one more ugly piece of kit hanging off the side of your computer.

      Conversely, built-in X is also something that every user has to put up with, whether they use it or not. It also means that every user has to pay for X, even if they don't use it. I doubt the demand for number pads on laptops is significant.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    26. Re:17" Macbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someday the big glass trackpad will have an iPhone-style LCD under it, and they can use half of it for a numeric keypad.

    27. Re:17" Macbook by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      This was consumer level stuff. I expect this kind of treatment when I am calling people like Cisco for expensive enterprise stuff.

      You do? Have you ever actually dealt with Cisco?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    28. Re:17" Macbook by pressman · · Score: 1

      Ever tried doing video editing on a 15" monitor? Trust me, it's no fun.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    29. Re:17" Macbook by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      I find that I rarely need a numeric pad, really. When I do, it's for macros in a game. The Macbook/Pro keyboards look a bit lonely on the laptops, though, with large areas of nothing :)

    30. Re:17" Macbook by db32 · · Score: 1

      That's why I bring mine home and hook it to my 22" desktop monitor and use a wireless keyboard/mouse with it so it sits happily on the corner of my desk. :) (Ok, well not exactly why, I don't do video, but havint 22" of screen realestate is really nice when coding.)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    31. Re:17" Macbook by pressman · · Score: 1

      At home a 17" hooked into a 30 Cinema Display is a thing of beauty. When you're out on a shoot, capturing and roughing out footage, a 15" screen just doesn't cut it. That 2 inches may seem like it's not very much, but it does make a huge difference when you have an interface with 4-5 panels that need to be open simultaneously.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    32. Re:17" Macbook by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well, Cisco tends to have a bit of language barrier, but I have never been treated with anything but politeness and professionalism by them. I have also never had to deal with the department merry go round where everyone claims its another departments issue. I have always gotten reasonably quick responses that were of infinitely higher quality that "put CD CDROM den Reboot".

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    33. Re:17" Macbook by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see it in that situation. I just see so many people buying the uber 17" laptop because its uber and 17". Which for a bizarre reason has recently flipped a bit of a 180 and now people are buying up those netbooks at an alarming rate. I don't want to have to carry a 12+lb monster everywhere I go, but I also don't want to have to hunker down with my nose 6 inches away from the screen and hands smushed together like a child just to do anything. I know people have uses for them, but I really really don't see any use for a netbook. These days my small ultraportable needs are met by my phone that has more computing power than my first real PC and my portable needs are met by my laptop.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    34. Re:17" Macbook by pressman · · Score: 1

      I hear ya. If I weren't a video editor or a graphic designer, the 15" would be the way to go for me. Big enough screen for most uses and very very easily portable.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    35. Re:17" Macbook by TilJ · · Score: 1

      In my case, I consider a numpad-less keyboard is an optimal design. I detest number pads (and caps-lock keys but that's a whole other story) with a burning passion. Way back when, that's why I bought a Happy Hacker keyboard (PS2 interface, sadly). The gap between the keyboard and the mouse is annoying and physically bad for your body (though it may be fine for left-handed mouse users?). For same number of folks that do number crunching enough to actually need a numpad more than they need comfortable text typing, I wish the market would make standalone usb numpads more popular. They're ideal: pull one out when you're number crunching, puss it back when you're not.

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
    36. Re:17" Macbook by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      True, but I gotta say, do they really drop everything for us and put all their effort into fixing stuff for us? And to be honest, are you sure "have you tried rebuilding the switch ports and changing the VLAN" (fictional) isn't their equivalent of "have you tried turniong it off and on again?"

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  10. Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700+ s by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700+ system come on other laptops have SLI at that price.

    And $1200 to go from 4gb to 8gb?

    I hope apple has a big Superbowl ad to show off the other new hardware.

  11. Macrumorslive.com feed hacked by th0mas_g · · Score: 1

    If anyone saw the macrumors.com keynote feed, it was hacked and someone inserted some pretty funny (albeit inappropriate) comments into the feed. I'll need to find a link to a screenshot...

    1. Re:Macrumorslive.com feed hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That site has been reported to the SEC.

    2. Re:Macrumorslive.com feed hacked by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean, anyone could view the file listing of http://www.macrumorslive.com/admin/, where anyone could open the .passwd file with unencrypted passwords.

    3. Re:Macrumorslive.com feed hacked by j-beda · · Score: 1

      There seem to be some pics here: http://www.bookmarktheweb.blogspot.com/

  12. Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, its pretty fashionable to argue these days that CEOs are just like everyone else, interchangeable parts that you can just get rid of. Steve Jobs isn't one of them, and I don't think Bill Gates was either, for that matter.

    But, in the case of Steve Jobs, the dude could walk out onto a stage, show you a product, and you would think, wow, that's really brilliant.

    Regardless of how Shiller is, he's not the guy that founded Apple, beat developers into the ground trying to make a product better. Sometimes took the company into the ground chasing after a vision but a lot of times made a mountain of money chasing after the same.

    You can't get the same vision from somebody who runs as a company as you can get from the guy that founded it. Even for CEOs, its just a job, but for founders, its a vision, and I'm going to miss the Apple of Jobs old, even as I miss the Microsoft of Gates the Evil.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The case for Jobs' value is almost uniquely strong, since he left Apple for a while and it tanked, then he came back and it recovered.

      That said, the opposite happens too; HP's stock shot up by billions the day Fiorina departed. So when my dad said, "Jobs proves CEOs are worth their pay," I had to disagree. You can't generalize like that.

    2. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PS. the most valuable executives build a business that can thrive even after they are gone. Again, Jobs' temporary absence provides a data point, but a negative one.

    3. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gates wasn't. He was the only one at Microsoft who could keep all the divisions working together. While the company was much too large for him to control by the end, he at least could make sure the company stayed on one road for the priority projects and that everyone's vision was the same.

      Jobs runs a smaller company and has much more vision so in his case the loss is far worse.

    4. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Indeed a GOOD CEO is worth a LOT to a company, a BAD CEO can destroy much of the companies value in a fairly short time.

      IMO a good CEO is one who has the ability to push back against the short termism that runs rampant in the stockmarket and lead the company in a direction that will make good profits in the long term.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Jobs proves CEOs are worth their pay,"

      The Jobs-Fiorina comparison makes almost the opposite point seeing as Jobs's salary is $1 and Fiorina's was ~$8M

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    6. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Jobs proves CEOs are worth their pay,

      The Jobs-Fiorina comparison makes almost the opposite point seeing as Jobs's salary is $1 and Fiorina's was ~$8M

      Almost. But Jobs' compensation package isn't limited to his salary.

    7. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I'm not sure you can exactly give Jobs all the credit. In the time he was gone he founded NeXT, and although they got bought up by Apple for a decent price, I don't think you could exactly make the case that NeXT was a thriving company.

      So it may be the case that Apple (without Jobs) has what it takes to be successful, but while Jobs was out he was replaced with incompetent management that prevented the company from reaching its potential. It may be was that his only unique role was to be the guy to OK throwing conventional design out the window and trying something new. Now that the doors have been opened, things may go just as well without him.

      The thing that lets apple be more successful than other companies trying the same thing is their reputation and fanbase. Few people would pay Apple prices for other brands, so other brands can't justify investing in the R&D to create such expensive and innovative products. But since it's apple, they can do almost whatever they want. For example, what other company would get away with making their portable music player have no other way to load it with music other than through their official software?

    8. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      The case for Jobs' value is almost uniquely strong, since he left Apple for a while and it tanked, then he came back and it recovered.

      That said, the opposite happens too; HP's stock shot up by billions the day Fiorina departed. So when my dad said, "Jobs proves CEOs are worth their pay," I had to disagree. You can't generalize like that.

      Actually Steve got fired back in the 80s because he was running Apple into the ground. Apple then went on to do quite well in the late 80s and early 90s. Steve went on to found NeXT, which had really cool hardware, and really cool software but which, since their systems were really expensive and incredibly slow compared to Sun workstations, never took off the way that Steve told everyone it would.

      Apple fucked up in the 90s because they underestimated Microsoft and they kept their prices ridiculously high. I worked in a research lab and was purchasing computer systems and by 1992 Apple's systems were almost twice the price of a PC and offered about half the performance. Apple's whole philosophy back then seemed to be "We'll make one computer, and sell it for 80 gajillion dollars and then everyone gets to go home for the rest of the year." As the performance of Intel's chips improved relative to the Motorola 68k series and as Windows got progressively less painful to use a lot of people decided that they would be willing to have a machine that ran twice as fast as a Mac and was half the cost even if the OS was ugly.

      By the time Windows 95 came out Apple was really hurting and Windows 95, which was more stable than MacOS, almost put the final nail in their coffin.

      Bear in mind that much of Apple's recent success is due to mistakes and missteps on the part of Microsoft just as much of Microsoft's success in the 80s and 90s was due to mistakes and missteps by their competitors.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    9. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by Coppit · · Score: 1

      I think you forget that Jobs is viewed as helping Apple and Fiorina was viewed as hurting HP. HP's stock went up because the market wanted Fiorina out.

    10. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much truth there is with this (I'm clearly not an HP employeer - or former).

      An interview with Fiorina I read says that (paraphrasing) she made a lot of cuts to HP, cuts that were needed to make the company profitable again. So at the time she was fired, which was 3 or 4 years of her tenure I think, was about the same time the cuts starting increasing the profit margins - expenses vs revenues type of thing (not an accountant either!).

    11. Re:Sometimes CEOs are really worth the billions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have to agree with your dad that jobs is worth at least every penny of his annual salary

  13. At least now we know why.. by jltnol · · Score: 1

    ... Steve Jobs wasn't there.... mostly software announcements.. and the iWorks Cloud Service... no biggie, really. And this is probably why Apple has decided to pull out of MacWrold... too much pressure to give updates, even if they are not quite ready. But as usual, you can expect more hardware announcements in the upcoming weeks. I'm sure Apple decided to leave stuff OUT of the keynote once the rumor mills grab onto something.. just to piss them off...

  14. Why is the death not mentioned? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

    Why is there no mention of Steve Jobs' death announcement? I saw it on MacRumorslive! WTF!

    1. Re:Why is the death not mentioned? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why is there no mention of Steve Jobs' death announcement? I saw it on MacRumorslive! WTF!

      That site was hacked.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Why is the death not mentioned? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

      Really? man, I tried to hack their admin panel and was stumped. I guess my elite hacker skills are rusty.

  15. So....what about TV? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Two semi-glaring points:

    -What about TV show and movie purchases? What level of DRM can be expected there (I don't know level of DRM applies now, so feel free to call me a clod who's talking out of an orifice other than stdout ). The verbiage seems to very carefully mention "songs" only, no other iTunes available media.

    -What about my current iTunes song library? Will the DRM magically disappear with my next update? Do I need to download my library again, (and thereby lose the totally pointless play count next to my songs? What will I do? That's how I keep score damnit!)

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:So....what about TV? by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Informative

      TV and movies have the same DRM as before. You can have the DRM stripped from existing songs for a fee, which will also upgrade them to a higher bit rate.

    2. Re:So....what about TV? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What about TV show and movie purchases?

      No mention of it, but most likely the same DRM as there ever was. Certainly you can't blame them for the movie *rentals* having DRM, but putting DRM on the purchases is a little annoying. I wish they had TV rentals that were cheaper than "buying" them.

      What about my current iTunes song library?

      The last time I checked, there was a $0.30/song, $3.00/album upgrade fee to strip the DRM and increase the bit rate to 256kbps. The last time I checked was about 10 minutes ago. However, when I went to purchase some of those upgrades, I got an error message that I couldn't buy them because the price had changed, and it wouldn't give me any more details. So maybe it will end being free?

      I think the last time I upgraded a song to "iTunes plus" or whatever they call it, they gave an option to simply replace the songs, keeping old metadata. I might be remembering incorrectly, though.

    3. Re:So....what about TV? by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

      -What about my current iTunes song library? Will the DRM magically disappear with my next update?

      You still have to pay 30 cents per song (or 30% of album price) to remove the DRM on previously purchased songs.

    4. Re:So....what about TV? by mblase · · Score: 1

      Two semi-glaring points:

      -What about TV show and movie purchases? What level of DRM can be expected there (I don't know level of DRM applies now, so feel free to call me a clod who's talking out of an orifice other than stdout ). The verbiage seems to very carefully mention "songs" only, no other iTunes available media.

      Movies still have basic DRM, tv shows too -- you can back them up in their current format, but burning to a standard SVCD, VCD or DVD format is prohibited.

      -What about my current iTunes song library? Will the DRM magically disappear with my next update? Do I need to download my library again, (and thereby lose the totally pointless play count next to my songs? What will I do? That's how I keep score damnit!)

      As others (and the Apple website) have pointed out, you can/will be able to upgrade to DRM-free for something like 30% of the price of each song or album. Of course, burning to a CD and re-ripping is still free.

    5. Re:So....what about TV? by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      For your current library, if DRM free tracks are available, you pay .30 to "upgrade" each song, And some other amount per album (based on the current price)

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    6. Re:So....what about TV? by SeanMon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do I need to download my library again, (and thereby lose the totally pointless play count next to my songs? What will I do? That's how I keep score damnit!)

      iTunes separates the metadata from the data somewhat: a song entry in the iTunes database has a pointer to a file.
      I updated my library to iTunes Plus when it first was released, and I didn't lose anything (play counts, ratings, and playlists!)

      --
      "Scud Storm!" -- Jeremy of PurePwnage.com
    7. Re:So....what about TV? by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 1

      From the press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html):

      "iTunes offers customers a simple, one-click option to easily upgrade their entire library of previously purchased songs to the higher quality DRM-free iTunes Plus format for just 30 cents per song or 30 percent of the album price. The iTunes Store will begin offering eight million of its 10 million songs in Apple's DRM-free format, iTunes Plus, today with the remaining two million songs offered in iTunes Plus by the end of March."

    8. Re:So....what about TV? by ryanleary · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect TV/Movie content to go DRM free anytime soon. Apple doesn't have the market power there that it does with the music industry and studios have no reason to listen to them. You may upgrade your library for $.30/song.

    9. Re:So....what about TV? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Certainly you can't blame them for the movie *rentals* having DRM

      Plenty of people would. DRM is ethically wrong** all of the time, not just technically inappropriate sometimes.

      ** the reasons for which, you can read about from people smarter than me

    10. Re:So....what about TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at Ars Technica's live blog of the event, you'll see it mentioned that existing purchases can be upgraded to the DRM-free high bitrate format. No mention of any involved costs, though.

    11. Re:So....what about TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -What about my current iTunes song library? Will the DRM magically disappear with my next update? Do I need to download my library again, (and thereby lose the totally pointless play count next to my songs? What will I do? That's how I keep score damnit!)

      you can "upgrade" your library. $0.30 per song and $0.60 per video

    12. Re:So....what about TV? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Then it seems to me that you object to the concept of digital "rentals" at all, and only believe in purchases.

      To me, there's a big difference. Whatever your ethical objection to DRM is, it seems to me it should only hold for someone else applying DRM to data that you own (whether you created it or purchased it). Someone else applying DRM to a copy that they themselves own should be their own prerogative, however smart or stupid the decision might be.

      Since I don't believe myself to own the movies I "rent", I don't really see the objection.

    13. Re:So....what about TV? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      No, you're interpreting the lack of DRM as the lack of ethical behaviour. If anything, taking away peoples' right to CHOOSE ethical behaviour means that no one can be ethical: only obedient.

    14. Re:So....what about TV? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      If anything, taking away peoples' right to CHOOSE ethical behaviour

      I can tell you're trying to get heavy here, but no one can take away your right to choose ethical behavior. All anyone can do is make that choice difficult.

      What I'm saying is that there's nothing unethical about you deciding to encrypt data that you theoretically "own", nor is it unethical to control the situations under which it can be unencrypted. What's unethical is using supposed "copyright protection" schemes to prevent people from accessing media which they own.

      If it's not your data, then the owner doesn't have any ethical obligation to provide access to you other than whatever you've agreed to and paid for. If you've actually purchased a song and supposedly "own" that copy (whatever that means), then labels shouldn't be trying to make it non-functional to force you to buy more copies.

    15. Re:So....what about TV? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

      All other content still has DRM. This is just for music. Continue to avoid video purchases on iTunes like the plague.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    16. Re:So....what about TV? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Or, you could just load the music into an old version of iTunes and run QTFairUse on it like the rest of us.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:So....what about TV? by Von+Helmet · · Score: 1

      Or DVDJon can do it for you.

    18. Re:So....what about TV? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that DRM has been quite consistently used to limit consumers' rights more than the law would?

    19. Re:So....what about TV? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, which is why I'm opposed to anyone else wrapping files that I "own" with DRM. Having your own files wrapped in DRM against your will is like buying a buying a house and finding that the house builder keeps it locked and won't let me have free access to the key. Some else wrapping their own files in DRM is like someone else buying a house, keeping it locked, and not allowing me free access to the keys. I don't see where I have any right to be upset that someone is wrapping their own files in DRM, any more than I have a right to be upset that other people keep their houses locked.

      And the thing with "rentals" is that when you "rent" a digital movie (from iTunes or Netflix or someplace like that), you don't "own" that file. So if it's wrapped in DRM, I don't think you have a lot of grounds to complain. Once you "buy" a digital movie, then I think you have grounds to complain if it's wrapped in DRM.

    20. Re:So....what about TV? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      OK, we seem to fundamentally disagree then, so I'll respect that and agree to disagree.

      And the thing with "rentals" is that when you "rent" a digital movie (from iTunes or Netflix or someplace like that), you don't "own" that file.

      I'd be careful about using the term "own" when making your arguments though, as many people see it in the polar opposite way: that files they download (rented or not) ARE owned (just as you own the copy of a car design that you buy). Whereas the designs represented by those files may or may not be owned by someone who downloads, depending on license and even their own interpretation of that license, etc., many people feel they have a natural right to move the file they own to any platform, and play it or convert it in any way they prefer.

    21. Re:So....what about TV? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'd be careful about using the term "own" when making your arguments though

      I am being careful, or didn't you notice that I was using it in limited ways and constantly putting it in quotes?

      as many people see it in the polar opposite way: that files they download (rented or not) ARE owned (just as you own the copy of a car design that you buy).

      I don't see how anyone could think that they own a movie that they rented. If I rent a DVD from Blockbuster, do I then own the copy to that movie? If you say yes, then I have to accuse you of not understanding what the word "rent" means.

  16. One down, two to go by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

    Unlocked music from iTunes, finally.

    Now they can focus on getting television episodes and movies unlocked.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    1. Re:One down, two to go by mblase · · Score: 1

      Unlocked music from iTunes, finally.

      Now they can focus on getting television episodes and movies unlocked.

      Highly desirable, but unlike the music issue, I don't think there's any competition here--nobody I know of is offering (major) commercial video that can be downloaded and then burned to standard VCD or DVD.

  17. iTunes DRM-free songs international or U.S. only? by javacowboy · · Score: 1

    One thing that's not mentioned anywhere is whether iTunes DRM-free music will be available internationally or only in the U.S.

    Does anybody know?

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  18. No more DRM on music, but... by thesolo · · Score: 5, Funny
    Great news about the music going DRM-free, but what about the rest of the iTunes store? It seems from this announcement that DRM will still be applicable on audiobooks, films, and TV shows, which is lousy.

    Still, it's a step in the right direction, and I applaud the people over at Amazon (and everyone else selling music without DRM) for doing it first. Without that step, I'm willing to bet that Apple would have stayed with DRM on their music catalog. It looks like part of Defective By Design's Anti-DRM wishlist came true.

    That said, Apple is also now charging if you want to get rid of your DRM (which means upgrading to 256 kbps tracks). From Apple.com:

    You don't have to buy the song or album again. Just pay the 30 cents per song upgrade price. (Music video upgrades are 60 cents and entire albums can be upgraded for 30 percent of the album price.)

    Yes, just $0.30 per song to get rid of the crap that we forced on you in the first place. Awful.

    In other news, I was getting my updates from MacRumorsLive.com, when their feed was cracked by 4Chan. The site crashed half-way through the keynote. Here are some screen caps for anyone interested:
    http://www.realfx.com/images/macrumorslive_pwned.jpg
    http://www.realfx.com/images/macrumorslive_pwned2.jpg
    http://www.realfx.com/images/macrumorslive_pwned3.jpg

    1. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, just $0.30 per song to get rid of the crap that we forced on you in the first place. Awful."

      Nobody forced you to buy the DRM'd song in the first place; you could have bought a non copy-protected CD, or an Amazon.com mp3. And nobody's forcing you to upgrade either.

    2. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by PintoPiman · · Score: 1

      Didn't iTunes already offer DRM-free music for the one label that allowed them to?

      And didn't Steve Jobs speak out about how DRM sucks and how he'd sell DRM-free stuff as soon as the labels let him?

      And didn't he do that as soon as they did?

      And didn't the labels intentionally allow Amazon (but not Apple) DRM-free tracks in order to help break Apple's monopoly, then cave when 1) the ploy failed and 2) they were able to use DRM-free as an incentive to reverse Apple's opposition to tiered pricing?

      Just wonderin'.

    3. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      That said, Apple is also now charging if you want to get rid of your DRM

      That's been the case since iTunes Plus first started. If any of the tracks you purchases became available in iTunes Plus, you could upgrade for .30 per track.

      "The early adopter penalty strikes again" or "Apple gets stuck trying to placate record companies, with whom they've had contracts since the beginning, while moving to what is apparently becoming the standard practice in digital music" Either way, the consumer takes it in the end. Personally, I think every dime of that 30 cent per track is going to straight to the record labels. They wouldn't dare let someone 'sell the same song twice' without a cut.

      How convenient that the upgrade option becomes available right after the holiday season when so many itunes gift cards were sold....whoops, must have left my tin foil hat on.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    4. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, just $0.30 per song to get rid of the crap that we forced on you in the first place. Awful.

      Also to double the bit rate. I'm not saying it's a great deal, but theoretically it's not just to get rid of the DRM.

    5. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Still, it's a step in the right direction, and I applaud the people over at Amazon (and everyone else selling music without DRM) for doing it first. Without that step, I'm willing to bet that Apple would have stayed with DRM on their music catalog. It looks like part of Defective By Design's Anti-DRM wishlist [defectivebydesign.org] came true. "

      There really is one born every minute isn't there? Apple had to bow to the industries pricing plan to be allowed to sell DRM free. That is the only reason Amazon's MP3 store even exists, to force Apple to allow the big label to dictate pricing. Well done you are partly responsible for putting up the price of digital music. Jackass.

    6. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find mininova an excellent site for removing DRM ;)
       

    7. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the $1.29 price tier is a $0.99 song plus $0.30 for the DRM freedom

    8. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by fermion · · Score: 1
      Combine that with DRM on the video port and I say no big deal. Amazon already sells most of the selection of itunes with much less fuss. Not on the iPhone, but how many people really buy music on the phone? It is just a marketing thing.

      This change is being made because Apple is likely loosing business to other online retailers, so they caved on the $.99 issue to get rid on DRM. Good for them, as I said a non issue for me. Given the availability of streaming on netflix, it seems hardly worthwhile to buy a movie off iTunes that may or may not be playable next year with current kit.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Apple had the EMI catalog DRm free before Amazon sold any digital music at all. Amazon initially only had the EMI catalog as well.

    10. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by BMonger · · Score: 1

      MacrumorsLive didn't crash. They took the site offline along with Macrumors.com to assess what happened instead of trying to fight 4Chan. Once they determined only MacrumorsLive was cracked they kept it offline (no chance of fixing the security issue in that time frame) and brought Macrumors.com back up as the servers are separate entities. Macrumors.com was only brought down just to be safe.

    11. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epic raid!

    12. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those images of the feed are great.

      "Jobs is dead." over and over.

    13. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by anotherone · · Score: 1

      Still, it's a step in the right direction, and I applaud the people over at Amazon (and everyone else selling music without DRM) for doing it first. Without that step, I'm willing to bet that Apple would have stayed with DRM on their music catalog.

      I'd take that bet. Apple was selling DRM-free music before Amazon even HAD an MP3 store.

      Steve Jobs' "Thoughts On Music" manifesto where he basically said "we hate DRM and want to get rid of it" was posted in February 2007. They started actually selling DRM free music under the "iTunes Plus" name in April 2007. Not everything in their library, mostly indy and EMI labels, but it was more DRM-free downloads than anyone at the time.

      Amazon MP3 didn't open until September 2007.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    14. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by nku · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how in the world you got +5 Funny. I remembered the obscure documentary "Mods Must Be Crazy" before I read the last 5 lines.

    15. Re:No more DRM on music, but... by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      This again shows that I was right about the need to extend the period for legal abortion by about 20 years.

  19. Upgrading songs from DRM to Plus is not free by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

    I have just had a look, and it will cost 20 pence to upgrade each song to DRM free and better quality of the Plus store. Good one Apple!

    1. Re:Upgrading songs from DRM to Plus is not free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what you bought, and you're complaining about a discounted upgrade offer that they had no obligation to give?

  20. Removable Battery by localman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was drooling over the new 17" until I got to the non-removable battery part. On long trips I've always loved the ability to swap through multiple batteries. 8 hours (which surely means 6 real world hours) is very good, but it still falls short of two or three swaps. Probably not something most people care about, so perhaps a good business decision... but I'll be holding on to my old 17" until it croaks, I guess.

    1. Re:Removable Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has a simple, elegant and shiny solution to this. When the battery goes dead, you just swap it out for your second $2800 17" laptop! That is what all the cool people are doing...you want to be cool too right?

    2. Re:Removable Battery by corprew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prediction: Soon you will be able to buy an external battery pack that is roughly the size of a laptop battery that you can plug in through the magsafe adapter rather than changing the battery physically.

      Oh, wait, whoops, the future is here.

      http://www.batterygeek.net/Batterygeek_15_21_130_External_Laptop_Battery_p/15-21-130_batterygeek.htm

    3. Re:Removable Battery by mgblst · · Score: 1

      This is a valid concern, and something like this comes up every time Apple release a new device. Last time it was the glossy screens, and the fact that there was no firewire on the plain Macbooks. This is quite annoying for those loyal customers, but their share keeps on growing.

      None of these problems have been killer for me, I was annoyed about the glossy screen on my macbook pro, but that went away very quickly.

    4. Re:Removable Battery by localman · · Score: 1

      Thanks, at least there is some option. Expensive, though: $400 instead of $130. Even if it lasts twice as long that's not a great deal. Ah well.

    5. Re:Removable Battery by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      I was drooling over the new 17" until I got to the non-removable battery part. On long trips I've always loved the ability to swap through multiple batteries. 8 hours (which surely means 6 real world hours) is very good, but it still falls short of two or three swaps. Probably not something most people care about, so perhaps a good business decision... but I'll be holding on to my old 17" until it croaks, I guess.

      If Apple is smart they'll open up the MagSafe licensing to third party vendors. This would allow them to create external battery packs that could be connected to a MacBook with a MagSafe connector. If well designed carrying such a battery pack would be no more inconvenient than carrying an extra battery for your laptop is now.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    6. Re:Removable Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yes, a charger with a builtin battery would be better than a spare battery. Though I've heard a disturbing claim that this model isn't usable if the builtin battery is worn out, because it sometimes needs more current than it can draw from the charger alone.

  21. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
    "And $1200 to go from 4gb to 8gb?"

    Well, with all Apple computers...it is best to buy them with minimal RAM, and put it in yourself from 3rd party purchase. Apple has pretty much always been a rip off when having them to upgrade the ram.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  22. iWork.com not a Google Docs-like services. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple also introduced the beta of a Google Docs-like service, iWork.com? Bzzt! Wrong. There was no mention or demo of editing the documents online in the presentation, only viewing, annotating, uploading, and downloading.

  23. upgrading purchased music by j-beda · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article says you can do so for a fee http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1711 but when I tried for my two purchased albums, it did not work crapping out with some "product has changed" error message. It reportedly worked back when they first introduced DRM-free tracks, so maybe it is a temporary problem as things get retooled.

    1. Re:upgrading purchased music by k_187 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, less than half of my purchases were eligible. I'm hoping they become so soon.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:upgrading purchased music by montykins · · Score: 1

      That article is about iTunes Plus, the feature they introduced a couple of years ago to buy songs for a higher price and get it DRM-free and in a higher-quality format. They haven't announced what they're going to do for this new policy.

    3. Re:upgrading purchased music by Frankenshteen · · Score: 1

      You'll need the new version of iTunes also - typically pushed by Apple updater evening of the release announcement...

      --
      "It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
    4. Re:upgrading purchased music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, make sure those albums do show up on your purchase history (look it up by clicking on your account name in the iTunes window), and that they are now listed in the store as iTunes Plus. I noticed that not everything I have purchased has made the switch to Plus yet, but as of today, most of it has.

      Assuming the above is true, contact iTunes support and tell them that you purchased those albums but they are not showing up as available for upgrade. I did this several weeks ago when I'd noticed that 3 songs I had purchased a few years ago were now available in Plus. They gave some similar excuse about the item had changed (ok, so the artist/label must have re-uploaded it, but it's still the same song!), but they gave me 3 free song credits so I could do the upgrade anyway.

      Don't know if they would give enough credits for 2 whole albums, but it never hurts to find out.

    5. Re:upgrading purchased music by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I tried again today and the "upgrade" went through just fine. The old DRM songs were deleted (there was an option to save them to the desktop) and the new ones took their place with the same play count and in the same play lists.

  24. Well two ways to look at it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One is that you do save some space by integrating the battery. There is a non trivial amount of extra material for making it removable since it had to be in it's own enclosure and such. So one could claim that is was done to either decrease size, or to increase capacity (by having larger cells).

    The other is that this makes the device much more disposable. Apple is in the hardware market, they make their money on buying new gadgets. It would be best for them if people viewed the gadgets as disposable and simply tossed them after a few years.

    1. Re:Well two ways to look at it by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      There is a non trivial amount of extra material for making it removable since it had to be in it's own enclosure and such.

      Well there is a difference between making it removable and making it user-replaceable. The latter meaning that the battery is reachable by opening the back of the latop with a screwdriver or similar procedure. I wonder which option they've chosen.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    2. Re:Well two ways to look at it by tknd · · Score: 1

      You're a rich bastard if you can toss your $2800 laptop and buy a new one every few years. I still have my dell laptop I paid $800 for 3.5 years ago and still have no plans on tossing it.

    3. Re:Well two ways to look at it by kcredden · · Score: 1

      It would be best for them if people viewed the gadgets as disposable and simply tossed them after a few years. Must be nice to have unlimited funds you can just "tossed them". I for one don't have $3,000 to toss away every 2 or 3 years just because some company has to make a laptop with hardwired batteries. Poor exchuse they're giving for the practice. With their genus, they could make plastic batteries, and fix it so they could be replaceable. If they can take out and replace the batteries, then so could a reasonable user. - Kc

      --
      -- Kevin C. Redden kcredden@ gmail 392992 .com (take out the 392992 for e-mailing me. Spam control)
    4. Re:Well two ways to look at it by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I doubt people will toss their MBP when the battery dies, and if they do I hardly think its integration would matter.

    5. Re:Well two ways to look at it by Refrag · · Score: 1

      The other is that this makes the device much more disposable. Apple is in the hardware market, they make their money on buying new gadgets. It would be best for them if people viewed the gadgets as disposable and simply tossed them after a few years.

      In no way does this make the notebook more disposable. Apple offers a battery replacement program just like they do for the MacBook Air, iPhone, and iPods.

      http://www.apple.com/batteries/replacements.html

      Also, more information how this MacBook Pro is not (as you said) disposable. From Apple's website:

      The removable batteries in most notebooks are designed to be replaced. You use them for a year or two, then get a new one. Itâ(TM)s a process in which lots of batteries are used up and discarded. Because the battery in the new 17-inch MacBook Pro lasts up to five years, it uses just one battery in the same time a typical notebook uses three. And to help ensure that batteries are disposed of in an environmentally responsible way, Apple offers a battery take-back program in 95 percent of the countries in which it does business.

      http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    6. Re:Well two ways to look at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the iPhone battery replacement program that holds onto the unit for a week and a half and then sends it back to you erased? That's not an option for my laptop unless I buy a spare machine, and if I do that I no longer need a battery for the dead one.

  25. constantly-powered battery reliability by Speare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am not particularly concerned with the general idea of a non-removable battery. I know that by removing the extra two walls internally, they fit a bit more charge-storing mass inside the slim case. I know that the life span of this new material is able to hold more Amp-hours, which is welcome.

    What concerns me is the "stays plugged in" case. Many people with this class of laptop leave the thing plugged in most of the time, but need the ability to untether just often enough to go on the road. I have had bad luck with batteries in the past, even with the best "smart charge" electronics, where the battery loses its peak capacity if it's left plugged into the DC wallwart 98% of the time. I don't discover the problem, of course, until just when I open the laptop in the airport, waiting for my departure flight.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:constantly-powered battery reliability by Altus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have seen this same problem as well, but its worht noting that the current batch of MacBook Pros apparently require the battery to be in place even if they are plugged into the wall because they cant pull enough power through the wall wart for peak performance and need the battery there for when power demands go up.

      So while you do have a good point its quite possible that, even if the battery were removable, you wouldn't be able to operate without it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:constantly-powered battery reliability by prockcore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of reliability, it doesn't happen often, but I've had both my PC and my Mac crash hard enough to have to remove the battery to get it to reboot.

      I'm guessing you'll just have to wait 8 hours for the battery to drain if this thing ever locks up.

    3. Re:constantly-powered battery reliability by KeithJM · · Score: 1

      I was worried about this with the Macbook Air. I've found that holding down the power key worked for me the one time it hung.

  26. Matte display by f1vlad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Matte display, it makes it that much worthwhile to me. I hated reflective.

    --
    o_O
    1. Re:Matte display by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      Of course you have to pay extra - for the option that most people have been clamoring about for a while. The same seems to be true of removal of DRM that wasn't wanted in the first place. Funny how amazon can sell DRM free music for 99 but for apple it costs 1.39.

    2. Re:Matte display by f1vlad · · Score: 1

      I never bought nothing in iTunes for that very reason (DRM). I used to buy things on allofmp3.ru, then on mp3.com and few other places. I guess I am not a true apple fan. But I like to be able to play my songs wherever I want. But I hate reflective display so much that truly matte worth extra $ to me.

      --
      o_O
    3. Re:Matte display by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Funny how amazon can sell DRM free music for 99 but for apple it costs 1.39.

      Did you not follow the announcement? There are three prices - 69c, 99c and $1.29. I'm not sure why you quote a figure higher than Apple says they will sell the tracks for. Is that an attempt at FUD or something?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Matte display by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      Fud? There is no FUD here. The simple fact is that you will have to pay 1.39 or (30% of album cost) TOTAL per current DRM'd song (or album) that you currently own to remove the DRM. Amazon has been selling Non-DRM music for over a year for 99 cents or less. I was not discussing Apple's future pricing or DRM strategies. It's just irritating to have to pay more for something that has already been paid for. It also proves that Steve really doesn't "believe" that music should not have DRM, if he did then they wouldn't charge us to remove it.

    5. Re:Matte display by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      Amen to that - it is too bad that got shut down. They were ahead of their time. The delivery system was rather clever, and being able to choose your bitrate and codec was pretty cool. Reflective displays are a PITA and are even worse to keep clean. I really wish industrial designers would wake up and stop using those finishes.

    6. Re:Matte display by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Fud? There is no FUD here. The simple fact is that you will have to pay 1.39 or (30% of album cost) TOTAL per current DRM'd song (or album) that you currently own to remove the DRM.

      That's pure FUD. you made no mention that you were talking about the price of upgrading pr re-purchasing. You said it as if that was the new price of all songs on the store.

      It still doesn't add up. 99c (original price) plus 30c per track to upgrade equals $1.29 per track. It's specious reasoning though, as you have already bought the track, and you are not forced to upgrade. If you didn't want the DRM, why did you buy the DRMed track in the first place?

      It's just irritating to have to pay more for something that has already been paid for.

      But you're not. You didn't pay for a 256kbps DRM-free version when you bought the first time. You paid for a 128kbps DRM-restricted version. It's a different product. Do you also believe that you should get free Blu-Ray copies of all the movies you bought on DVD?

      It also proves that Steve really doesn't "believe" that music should not have DRM, if he did then they wouldn't charge us to remove it.

      It proves nothing of the sort. How do you know that it isn't the record labels that made it a requirement to pay for upgrades? They are the ones in control of licensing their songs. And it makes no sense. If Steve doesn't believe that music should be DRM-free, then why would he switch the entire store over to DRM-free music? Why did he encourage the labels to do that in the first place?

      You talk about Amazon, but if it wasn't for Jobs putting pressure on the labels, then Amazon wouldn't be selling DRM-free tracks either.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  27. Re:Darn... no iPhone update by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Funny

    32G? Isn't last year's 3G-compatible iPhone good enough?

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  28. How about just letting me move files to my iPhone by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Through the sync chord in iTunes. *sigh*

    Offload my photos. Give me the option to buy TomTom or another REAL GPS software tool.

  29. iTunes DRM-free - But Shell Out To "Upgrade" by Petersko · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want to upgrade your old purchases to DRM-free status, though, you can pay the "upgrade" price.

    I bought three albums on iTunes this past weekend. At least one of them is DRM-laden. Colour me unimpressed, but I'm not really surprised. I don't have rose-coloured glasses on when it comes to Apple. I sometimes use iTunes when it's 3:00 a.m. and I'm hankering for new music. I fire up the Bands Under the Radar podcast and poke around until something catches my fancy. They made it convenient, so I put up with the conversion process to other drm-free formats.

    "It's also easy to upgrade your iTunes library to iTunes Plus. You don't have to buy the song or album again. Just pay the 30 per song upgrade price. (Music video upgrades are 60 and entire albums can be upgraded for 30 percent of the album price.)"

    1. Re:iTunes DRM-free - But Shell Out To "Upgrade" by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

      I don't see why anyone would pay the fee, just remove it yourself.

    2. Re:iTunes DRM-free - But Shell Out To "Upgrade" by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

      You're assuming everyone knows how to do this, remember the largest percentage of PC "users" struggle to cope when their "settings" menu changes to "preferences" in an update. In too many cases calling them "users" is a compliment.

  30. Re:iTunes DRM-free songs international or U.S. onl by khendron · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for the entire world, but I've noted that the Apple Canada site (apple.ca) is advertising DRM-free music. So that's one place outside of the USA.

    --
    Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
  31. what's with non-removable batteries these days? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery, why is there this trend to prevent that? I'm not even talking about the need to swap to keep working on the road, I mean swapping when the damn thing wears out. If the number of rated charge cycles isn't over 800, these things are going to die way too quickly. I'm still a bit miffed that I can't get at the battery for my palm tungsten, it's about half of what it used to be. My new mp3 player has an integrated battery, just one more excuse for getting rid of it in a few more years. :eyeroll:

    The thing that really miffs me about tech companies and Apple seems excessively guilty of this: they seem to be following the model of the fashion industry with rolling out new products with incremental changes, feature dribbles that could have all been brought out in one unit, etc. I like to run a longer lifecycle on my hardware. I want my lappy to last for 8 years, not 2. Put all your good ideas in one model, then save them up for another one. It's like they expect us to behave like the fashion-conscious, throwing out the old wardrobe not because it's worn out but because it has become unfashionable. Fuck that shit, if I wanted to be a fashion-conscious slave I'd get an Apple -- I don't want to see the bad ideas adopted in non-Apple products!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by saddino · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the number of rated charge cycles isn't over 800, these things are going to die way too quickly.

      The new MBP battery is rated for 1000 recharge cycles, or 5 yrs of typical use.

    2. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Just because it isn't easily replaceable (as cell phones are) doesn't mean it's hard. I've changed the battery on numerous iPods. I bet if you google for "Tungsten battery replacement" you'll find your solution.

    3. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      What does that even mean? If battery life drops to 5 minutes, doesn't that still count as a recharge cycle as long as you can plug it in and get another 5 minute charge?

      My old ibook had battery life drop to 5 minutes for months before it stopped charging altogether.

    4. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It's very rare for Apple to update any product more than once per year, if even that often. Even just basic speed / disk space bumps don't happen all that regularly. They don't constantly dribble out minor upgrades, although occasionally the new version is little more than a speed bump. More importantly, when a product is updated, the old one doesn't suddenly stop working.

      Regardless of Apple's release schedules, I don't see how that really ties into the rest of your argument. Whether Apple releases four completely new laptops or 100 smaller upgrades over the next 8 years, how does that affect whether you keep your current laptop for 2 years or 8? Unless you're suggesting that the industry as a whole should artificially restrain the the inevitable growth of computer power so that you don't feel so bad about having an older machine?

      iPods, iPhones, and most certainly this new laptop do not have unreplaceable batteries. The batteries just take a little more work to replace. It's slightly less convenient, but if it's something that only happens once every few years or so, then there are lots of design decisions that could make the tradeoff worthwhile.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    5. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery, why is there this trend to prevent that?

      Well, if the first half of your statement were true, your question would be rendered irrelevant, wouldn't it?

    6. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine it means until it drops low enough that they'll issue you a warranty replacement if it's still under 3 years old - about 50% of the original charge, I think, although don't quote me on that. It's somewhere in that vicinity.

      People need to stop freaking out. You can change the battery with five minutes and a screwdriver if your battery dies. The only thing it prevents you from doing is swapping in a second battery on really long trips, which hopefully you won't need if the battery lasts 6+ hours. I can count the people I know who carry a second battery for their 2.5 hour laptops on one finger.

    7. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      Though I haven't checked it out in this case, Apple's previous stand (recharge ratings for batteries) usually means after 1000 charges battery will only recharge to 80% original capacity. So you will be down to 6.4 hours after 1000 recharge cycles.

      Somewhere I've run into Apple docs that state that recharging from battery at 50% counts at .5 charge... but don't quote me on that cuz that was a while ago and I don't have time to search for the doc.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    8. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery,

      No, they don't. Not all of them. And there are valid design and engineering reasons why that decision was made.

      The thing that really miffs me about tech companies and Apple seems excessively guilty of this: they seem to be following the model of the fashion industry with rolling out new products with incremental changes, feature dribbles that could have all been brought out in one unit, etc.

      I'm not sure what you're saying here - Apple shouldn't release improved products until they have a massive breakthrough or radically different design? I don't think many users would be happy with that.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      if I wanted to be a fashion-conscious slave I'd get an Apple

      Looking around the web I think you are being more of a fashion whore by hating Apple. Its totally in vogue and has been for years on most tech sites. Where have you been since 1984?

    10. Re:what's with non-removable batteries these days? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      1000 cycles till it only gets 80% charge which would be 6+ hours still.

  32. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Piranhaa · · Score: 1

    You're usually always paying a slight premium from a retailer. It's DDR3 SODIMM memory, so expect to pay a HUGE premium (especially at that size).

    http://shop.crucial.com/1/1/302292-ct2kit51264bc1067-8gb-kit-4gbx2-204-pin-sodimm-ddr3-pc3-8500-memory-module.html

    The 8GB kit (4GBx2) = US$1179.99

    It is a little to go from 4GB, that you're already paying for, up to 8GB, but nobody is holding a gun to your head. You're still better off buying it third party, and selling the sticks that come with it, but then you don't have the same level of support than if you purchased with it. Any manufacturer will be quick to assume the memory is the problem and refuse warranty until the original sticks are put back in place.

  33. Still too high by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the lowest song price is $0.69

    Still forty cents too high. Back when a single came on vinyl and cost a dollar, the manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, etc. gave them maybe a dime profit at most. Now they want a buck with no manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, or any other costs except profit.

    Actually producing and recording the sucker was incredibly exoensive back then too. It's dirt cheap these days, but we're still paying the same inflated prices (well, not "we", I stopped buying RIAA drack back when Napster was illegal).

    I blame cocaine, the shit makes people greedy. The labels' own greed is causing their downfall.

    1. Re:Still too high by Thornburg · · Score: 1

      the lowest song price is $0.69

      Still forty cents too high. Back when a single came on vinyl and cost a dollar, the manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, etc. gave them maybe a dime profit at most. Now they want a buck with no manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, or any other costs except profit.

      How exactly are they getting a $1 profit out of a $0.69 download? Or a $.99 download? Even at $1.29, surely Apple takes some of that, and the artist, etc.

    2. Re:Still too high by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The removal of DRM is nice but pricing is still too high. Call me when the price is based on file size with new releases being allowed a slight premium cos they're you know, new.

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    3. Re:Still too high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can always count on someone to bitch, bitch, bitch.

    4. Re:Still too high by wassabison · · Score: 1

      Call me when the price is based on file size with new releases being allowed a slight premium cos they're you know, new.

      Yep, quality and quantity are the same metric. I have 20 minute song that you will love titled 'screeching love'.

    5. Re:Still too high by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      File size as in the amount of physical space a song occupies on a server, and the amount of bandwidth needed to transfer said song are the only meaningful metrics here. allOfMP3.com had it right with regards to pricing model, it was a shame when Visa/MasterCard were bullied into no longer accepting charges from them.

      Also this is where VBR encoding comes to play. If its just a straight 20 minutes of you screaming, you gotta stop for breath quite a while in those 20 minutes. Ever tried to scream for even 10-15 whole seconds? It's harder than you think. The point being with VBR, those breaks for breath are going to be encoded at a lower bit rate, resulting in a smaller file size than if it were CBR encoded.

      Another thing allOfMP3.com did that was awesome, was you could choose any audio format, and even the quality of the file. Want FLAC? It'll cost extra, but you could do it. I always used what was formerly known as LAME --alt-standard though, I think it's known as -v2 now. Gives about an average 190-224 kbs bit rate and was engineered to be indiscernible from the source material.

      And like I said, they could charge a small premium for new release stuff to cover your very lofty "quality" metric.

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    6. Re:Still too high by wassabison · · Score: 1

      So, In a sane world Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower sells for less than Brittney Spear's Toxic? It is older and shorter.

    7. Re:Still too high by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Back when a single came on vinyl and cost a dollar, the manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, etc. gave them maybe a dime profit at most.

      Yeah, and ten cents in 1970 is sixty cents today. So if you really want to go tit for tat for your old vinyl singles (or doubles, more likely)--each one of those old vinyls would be priced at about $6 today.

      Actually producing and recording the sucker was incredibly exoensive back then too. It's dirt cheap these days, but we're still paying the same inflated prices

      Because the price doesn't reflect the sum of its tangible parts and never has. Every product includes some portion of the price allocated for the intellectual labor and creativity that goes into it. In the case of your basic entertainment works, this is the lion's share of the price. Changes in technology lowering actual physical costs doesn't have a major impact on the price of songs, books, and movies because it was a minority component to begin with, but music and movies have decreased appreciably in price.

      The level of greed at recording studios has not, in fact, changed much at all in the past forty years. The level of asshattery has, but that's the world we live in.

    8. Re:Still too high by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      the lowest song price is $0.69

      Still forty cents too high. Back when a single came on vinyl and cost a dollar

      ... you could play it 5 times and then only a fan would still listen through all those scratches.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:Still too high by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      In a sane world, electronic music prices would reflect the lack of "manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, or any other costs" as pointed out by mcgrew, rather than the labels going "OMGZ eMusicz we can make 1000%s profitz!!!!"

      Anecdote time. Back when I was downloading music frequently I had a simple two-step process for acquiring music. 1st step: check allofMP3.com. As said, I was willing to pay pennies on the MB for music, rather than muck around torrent trackers for whatever it was I was looking for. 2nd step: If 1st step failed, then I would muck around torrent sites. There was no 3rd step.

      Point of anecdote, I was willing to pay sane prices for music rather than jump straight to 'piracy'. I imagine most people would be too. 69 cents is still very high for something with near-zero distribution, storage, and replication costs.

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    10. Re:Still too high by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Point of anecdote, I was willing to pay sane prices for music rather than jump straight to 'piracy'.

      Pay who? AllOfMP3.com claimed that it was setting aside funds for the artists, etc., but that no-one had ever claimed it from them. Haha. That really passed the sniff test. About the same as "Most bittorrent traffic is Linux ISOs, even if all those top 10 torrent tracker sites show the most downloaded stuff to be screeners of new release films and top 10 albums that we claim to hate so much!"

    11. Re:Still too high by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that you only pay for the bandwidth? Despite how shitty the industry is, that seems a little far out.

    12. Re:Still too high by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and ten cents in 1970 is sixty cents today

      You're missing the point (purposely?) Once the song is recorded, there are NO COSTS WHATEVER to delivering a digital download. There is no justification for charging a buck twenty or half that. None whatever.

      Plus, your inflation metric is faulty. I paid $600 for a 25 inch TV in 1976, today a TV with that size screen is stereo, has a remote control, and cost $100. The price of gas and bread has skyrocketed since then, but the price of electronics has dropped.

      In 1969 a Fender Stratocaster was $1200. Today it's $250.

      Every product includes some portion of the price allocated for the intellectual labor and creativity that goes into it. In the case of your basic entertainment works, this is the lion's share of the price.

      And the cost of producing and recording that song has dropped tremendously. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a mediocre studio back in 1970, but today a quality studio is only a few thousand. The cost of recording has dropped tremendously.

    13. Re:Still too high by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      you could play it 5 times and then only a fan would still listen through all those scratches

      Incorrect, young man. I have CDs that I made from 30 year old LPs, and you really have to crank the volume up to hear any noise. Sure, if you throw your 45 around, leave it out of its cover in the dust, etc, you'll ruin it, but only morons treated their records like that.

      WQNA, a local station that plays literally everything (I've heard Tennessee Ernie Ford followed by the Dead Kennedies) and streams on the internet. Listen on a Sunday at noon US Central time - a couple of friends of mine have a blues show then, "The Real Deal HiFi Blues", and much of the music they play is from records over a half century old. You will be amazed and educated.

    14. Re:Still too high by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Once the song is recorded, there are NO COSTS WHATEVER to delivering a digital download.

      Yes, network bandwidth is free, as are servers powerful enough to deliver millions of songs per day. I hear credit card companies offer micropayment systems for free as well.

      You can dispute the price all you like, but you must accept that the delivery is absolutely not free, even in a digital world.

    15. Re:Still too high by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs. <$.01="Free"

    16. Re:Still too high by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point (purposely?)

      No, but you are.

      Once the song is recorded, there are NO COSTS WHATEVER to delivering a digital download. There is no justification for charging a buck twenty or half that. None whatever.

      The delivery costs are incidental. The price of the track is based on the value of the music. Those prices do not change appreciably over time. The cost to commission a painting today is roughly the same, adjusted for inflation, as the price to do so in 1965. The price of canvas and paint have both fallen relative to PPP, but, like music, this is mostly irrelevant

      The price of gas and bread has skyrocketed since then, but the price of electronics has dropped.

      And? The price of gas, bread, or electronics has very little to do with the price charged for a copy of a song.

      And the cost of producing and recording that song has dropped tremendously.

      Did you not even read what you quoted? Clearly not:

      "Every product includes some portion of the price allocated for the intellectual labor and creativity that goes into it. In the case of your basic entertainment works, this is the lion's share of the price"

      The cost of producing and recording the song was never more than a minority portion of the retail price. If only, say, 25% of the price was for production and distribution, then even a three-fold reduction in those fixed costs would only shave 15% off the price. The inflation in the mean time would have more than made up the difference. The value of music is not based in the cost of its production.

  34. "iBattery syndrome" by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery, why is there this trend to prevent that?

    My old iPaq didn't, and of course the iPhone doesn't.

    I hereby dub it "the iBattery syndrome".

    I'm glad my original Macbook Pro didn't have an iBattery, or else it would have been trashed when my battery swelled out of its case.

  35. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

    I expect it ships with 2x2GB, filling the two slots. To upgrade to 8GB you need 2x4GB, and 4GB DDR3 SODIMMs are still pricey.

    If there were 4 slots, it would be much cheaper, as going from 4 to 8 would just mean buying another 2 2GB SODIMMs.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  36. Apple's Google Docs-like service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will cost $99.

  37. Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Compare to, say, Amazon MP3, or Magnatune, or Mindawn, or Nugs.net...

    What do all of these have in common?

    The ability to buy songs with a web browser, and the availability of lossless music.

    Yes, I realize most people can't tell the difference. But the implications of lossless (particularly FLAC) are that the studio only has to release that one format, and users can convert them into anything they want. To make it "easy", they can release an MP3, also.

    So... With Amarok -- or at least, once Amarok is working again (fucking Amarok 2 broke everything, but the bug is marked WONTFIX in 1), I can buy music straight from Magnatune, in Flac, store it and play it as Flac on my hard drive, and convert it to AAC or MP3 automatically when I transfer it to an iPod -- or convert it to OGG when I transfer it to a RockBox deviec.

    With iTunes, I pretty much have to use iTunes to buy the music, and I'm guessing it's still just going to be AAC.

    Oh yeah, and the tiered pricing.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Requires iTunes by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      For those of us who WANT to use iTunes, that's not really a problem. I've only bought a couple of things on the iTunes Store, but I've been using iTunes regularly since before the iTunes Store existed.

      Yes, it'll be 192kbps AAC. If that's not good enough for you, then you have a valid complaint. Most people can't hear the difference and don't want to take up the extra hard drive space for lossless encoding, then take the time to re-encode it when transferring to other devices.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Requires iTunes by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a number of words in your post that the average consumer will not recognize, nor care about: FLAC, AAC, OGG, RockBox, Amarok, Magnatune, etc.

      Until the masses care, most capitalists will not.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    3. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For those of us who WANT to use iTunes, that's not really a problem.

      I'm on Linux, most of the time. But that's only part of the story...

      My mother just bought a brand-new iPod. It doesn't work with the version of iTunes she has on her computer, and the new version of iTunes that will work requires XP (she's on 2K). So the choice is either pay for an XP upgrade, or buy her a new computer. Or, as a compromise, I've found an old computer and set up Linux and Amarok.

      It's not going to be pleasant if she has to buy a song on iTunes, then transfer it over to this other box, then to her iPod.

      I suppose what bothers me most about it is, how difficult is it, really, to set up a shopping cart for music? That's, what, a weekend of work? A week, maybe?

      Most people can't hear the difference and don't want to take up the extra hard drive space for lossless encoding, then take the time to re-encode it when transferring to other devices.

      Point is, not all devices will necessarily do AAC. For the ones that do, great, it'll probably sound good enough. For the rest, there's a generational loss.

      And again, Amarok will do that transcoding for you, which means it takes none of your time, only CPU time while you sync.

      The model I've seen work well is, both mp3 and Flac, and charge a little extra for the Flac. People who don't want to deal with it will buy mp3, and people who care about any format other than mp3 can do it themselves by buying Flac.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      True enough. However, when the masses come to me for advice, I will mention these things.

      You should not have to install a piece of software to use a fucking music store.

      Do you have to install eTunes to use eBay? Do you have to install amaTunes to use Amazon?

      As for the masses, a surprising number seem to prefer Winamp.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Requires iTunes by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The masses understand MP3 and understand well enough when a random MP3 won't play an AAC file (DRM or not).

      Replace Amarok with Sandisk or Sony and you have the same effect.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Requires iTunes by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      No you don't, but do you purchase a physical device that is dependent on those services. The original conception of iTunes was to be used with an iPod. The music store is ancillary to the device so iTunes will be designed to maximize the iPod and not the music store.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    7. Re:Requires iTunes by voidptr · · Score: 1

      Microsoft will offer Mainstream Support for either a minimum of 5 years from the date of a productâ(TM)s general availability, or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer.

      http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
      http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

      Windows 2k went GA 3/31/2000, and XP went GA 12/31/2001, which means 2k went out of support on 3/31/2005. It's not really Apple's fault that they dropped support for an OS that Microsoft stopped supporting over 3 years ago.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    8. Re:Requires iTunes by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You should not have to install a piece of software to use a fucking music store.

      And you don't have to. As you said yourself, you can use Amazon (although they require you to install software to download full albums) or mp3.com.

      But many people prefer to use iTunes. The browsing and purchasing experience is much nicer than web browser based stores.

      Do you have some sort of problem with people having different preferences than yourself?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Requires iTunes by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      OK, those are good points - if you're using an operating system that iTunes doesn't support (Win98, Win2k, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), then requiring iTunes is a problem. And no, not all devices support AAC, although many do, in particular the most popular portable media player (with 70% of the market).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    10. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      No, it's not Apple's fault.

      Point is, if they'd stuck to open standards, it wouldn't matter -- they wouldn't have to do any work to support older OSes, or other OSes. Even pre-OSX Macs, with iCab.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    11. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      But many people prefer to use iTunes. The browsing and purchasing experience is much nicer than web browser based stores.

      Design the browser based store properly, or at least provide an open API, and you can do the same elsewhere.

      Exhibit A: Magnatune support directly in Amarok.

      Do you have some sort of problem with people having different preferences than yourself?

      When only their preferences are supported, yes, it's a problem.

      Yeah, use IE if you really want to, so long as your site is designed to some reasonable approximation of standards, so I don't have to. If you slap on a "best viewed in IE6" disclaimer and ignore Firefox, well, 1995 called...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    12. Re:Requires iTunes by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Exhibit A: Magnatune support directly in Amarok.

      Which kind of proves my point - look at the awful user interface on Magnatune. iTunes is nicer.

      When only their preferences are supported, yes, it's a problem.

      What the hell are you talking about? You youself said that you can use Magnatune and Amazon and others. So how is it that only my preferences are supported? You have plenty of outlets supporting your preference, so what's the problem?

      Yeah, use IE if you really want to, so long as your site is designed to some reasonable approximation of standards, so I don't have to. If you slap on a "best viewed in IE6" disclaimer and ignore Firefox, well, 1995 called...

      What the hell? When did I mention IE, and what does this have to do with anything?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    13. Re:Requires iTunes by nawcom · · Score: 1

      Amarok? Please don't tell me you've never used Songbird! It all comes down to opinion, but if you want an iTunes alternative, that's where it is. Perhaps you wont catch this message since there is a little under 600 messages here, but if you do catch this reply i highly suggest trying it out.

    14. Re:Requires iTunes by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      My mother just bought a brand-new iPod. It doesn't work with the version of iTunes she has on her computer, and the new version of iTunes that will work requires XP (she's on 2K). So the choice is either pay for an XP upgrade, or buy her a new computer. Or, as a compromise, I've found an old computer and set up Linux and Amarok.

      Or sell that iPod and buy a better music player. ;)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    15. Re:Requires iTunes by Draknor · · Score: 1

      You should not have to install a piece of software to use a fucking music store.

      Do you have to install eTunes to use eBay? Do you have to install amaTunes to use Amazon?

      "Should"!? Who cares -- Apple never claimed to have a web-based music store! And actually, yes, you do have to install special software if you want to download MP3 albums from Amazon. Not for individual tracks (or their other products), however.

      I can understand you are a little annoyed that your 9-year old operating system doesn't work with a brand-new product, but, that's the digital life. Heck, the operating system that's required (XP), isn't going to be available much longer (at least not for OEMs).

      As for other options, you could probably pick up a used computer on craiglist, with XP license, for less than $100. Doesn't even have to be a fancy computer, just something with the COA sticker. Or pick-up a used Mac and use that as the music computer. Might even save money in the long run over the power consumption of an "older computer".

      You've picked a workaround solution for her, and that's fine, but I hardly think its fair to blame Apple for your klunky workaround when you didn't meet their minimum specs to begin with.

    16. Re:Requires iTunes by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      And no, not all devices support AAC, although many do, in particular the most popular portable media player (with 70% of the market).

      And what percentage of the car audio player market? And what percentage of the home stereo market? And what percentage of the DVD player market and ... There is more to audio than the portable player market.

    17. Re:Requires iTunes by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      You should not have to install a piece of software to use a fucking music store. Do you have to install eTunes to use eBay? Do you have to install amaTunes to use Amazon?

      There is not a single thing wrong with installing a piece of software to accomplish a given task. Just try using the World Wide Web without a browser, and see how your day goes.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    18. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Which kind of proves my point - look at the awful user interface on Magnatune.

      You mean the one that makes it easy to search, sort, and put those songs in a playlist before they're purchased?

      What the hell are you talking about? You youself said that you can use Magnatune and Amazon and others.

      Except with the iTunes store.

      And saying "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" is well within your rights (and Apple's), but it's still a dick move. Kind of like private clubs, some of which don't allow certain religions or skin colors, some of which don't allow women -- maybe legal, but not great.

      What the hell? When did I mention IE, and what does this have to do with anything?

      It's called a metaphor, dipshit. "If you don't like the fact that this site requires IE, go somewhere else. No one's forcing you to go here." And yet, we still consider it a best practice to design cross-platform sites, and we still get annoyed when we come across a broken site.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    19. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I hardly think its fair to blame Apple for your klunky workaround when you didn't meet their minimum specs to begin with.

      Yeah, what's "klunky" about my workaround?

      And all of this would be trivially solved by putting a team on it for a couple of weeks and building a web interface. My less-than-a-year-old OS (Linux) doesn't run iTunes either, and it shouldn't have to.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Good example -- a browser uses an international, open standard to access web pages. There are many choices in browsers, and there are many tools other than browsers which can access a web page.

      iTunes uses a nonstandard, proprietary protocol to access their store, and your choice is iTunes or iTunes. Which leaves OSes which iTunes doesn't support out in the cold, no matter how good they are at playing music.

      Makes you wonder WTF the point of going DRM-free was, if you still have to use exactly one program.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    21. Re:Requires iTunes by warrigal · · Score: 1

      Point is, not all devices will necessarily do FLAC. For the ones that do, great, it'll probably sound good enough. For the rest, there's a generational loss. Does anyone in the mainstream use FLAC? Could it be because no-one is quite sure if it's safe to do so, patent-wise?

    22. Re:Requires iTunes by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      You obviously have missed the point of FLAC, then. Lossless means any "generational loss" is the first generation. If you download a FLAC and then re-encode to AAC, you'll get the same result as downloading the AAC, just with more time and bandwidth spent.

      On the other hand, if you re-encode an AAC to MP3, you're now two generations away. Some people can tell the difference with just a single generation MP3.

      The difference is, if you then get a player that supports AAC+, you can do that. Or a player that supports WMA, or even Vorbis. Or encode it to AC3 and put it on a DVD. Or an old-school player that only supports mp3 -- or back to raw PCM, and burn a CD. All without having to go find those files again -- or re-buy them, depending who you're dealing with -- just tweak a setting in Amarok, push "sync", and come back in a few hours.

      Could it be because no-one is quite sure if it's safe to do so, patent-wise?

      I think it has more to do with business concerns. After all, FLAC has no licensing fees -- anyone know if Apple gets royalties on AAC and other MPEG stuff?

      There's also concerns like bandwidth and storage, and the relative lack of demand for FLAC -- though I think that's really more of a marketing problem; it's not that hard to sell to people with ever-larger hard drives that they can't fill, and ever faster Internet connections they can't saturate.

      And there's the fact that if it was just the patents, you'd think Apple Lossless would be getting more love.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  38. About damn time by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    Hopefully now we'll see which music store will reign supreme now that iTunes isn't handicapped with the DRM restriction while Amazon wasn't gimped by the RIAA.

    Yay "free" markets?

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  39. Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by Wee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're ditching DRM. That's pro-consumer. What you're saying is that they are going to have to charge what the studios want to charge (ie, more). That's not anti-consumer enough to balance out the goodness factor of allowing people to actually play the music they buy on any device they own (which has kept me from using ITMS thus far).

    I'm sorry you don't like higher prices. But you finally own what you buy. If you're still concerned about ITMS's prices, you really shouldn't have been using them in the first place as they've always been outrageously expensive.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      well it makes sense. by removing DRM they've increased the value of the songs to us, so an increase in price is justified there.

      but a buck a song is $10 for your average album and that's where i think the price should be without DRM. but it's a good step, i think things will balance out much more after the giants lose their control and start to die off.

    2. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by Wee · · Score: 1

      well it makes sense. by removing DRM they've increased the value of the songs to us, so an increase in price is justified there. but a buck a song is $10 for your average album and that's where i think the price should be without DRM. but it's a good step, i think things will balance out much more after the giants lose their control and start to die off.

      Actually, the cost should have dropped, IMO. Short reason: there's no physical thing to produce, package, ship, display, etc. You make one set of MP3s, and you can sell it 100,000 times for the same production cost. Bits have near-infinite reproducibility. CDs are tied to things like the plastics commodity market, manufacturing costs, paper and fuel prices, etc. The cost to produce them over time varies, and trends upwards. MP3s just get cheaper and cheaper the more copies you sell since you're amortizing them into an increasingly infinitesimal state each time you make a sale.

      I saw the Twilight soundtrack at Best Buy when I was there during my lunch break. It was $14. And for that you got an actual physical disk containing 12 songs. The disk will arguably last you forever, and during that span you can play it on devices which are even now 20 years old. Call it $1.25/song with tax. What is the entire album selling for on iTunes? If it's even close to $14 for the entire album, it's a rip-off.

      Sure, the album is now DRM-free like its physical counterpart, so that mitigates a large part of the problem of you not being able to play what you bought. But it should cost like half what the actual disc costs. Trust me, the record companies see the difference in profit levels for a CD, even at $0.69/song. But that's their real problem: people are cherry-picking what songs they buy. Their grabbing the ones their friends have or what's on the radio or what's being played in school rather than an entire CD's worth of music. And Apple's cool with this, as it's designed to sell music a la carte like that. The recording industry's collective hides are chapped, however, as they're seeing whole-album sales tumble. And that's what their past profits were based on. With Amazon and ITMS and the others, they can't pack one or two hits on an album and expect you and I to shell out $16 for it.

      What they really want is for you and I to buy only the entire CD and play it only on a device that they hope you can't use to copy the work in question. They tried that, it doesn't work because it's (among other things) a terrible user experience. And so they threw Apple the carrot of no DRM as long as they hit the user with the tiered pricing stick at the same time in an effort to shore up their Jurassic-era business model. You are paying for their lack of foresight when you buy music on ITMS, in other words.

      THAT is why I said music on ITMS is outrageously priced. You're being forced to pay an artificially large sum for single tracks purely because their business model is built around selling entire albums containing songs of varying marketability. I think it stinks. But it stinks much less than DRM-laden music, and so I think it's a net win for consumers. YMMV.

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    3. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, the cost should have dropped, IMO. Short reason: there's no physical thing to produce, package, ship, display, etc. You make one set of MP3s, and you can sell it 100,000 times for the same production cost. Bits have near-infinite reproducibility. CDs are tied to things like the plastics commodity market, manufacturing costs, paper and fuel prices, etc. The cost to produce them over time varies, and trends upwards. MP3s just get cheaper and cheaper the more copies you sell since you're amortizing them into an increasingly infinitesimal state each time you make a sale.

      I think Level3, GlobalCrossing, Internode, Peer Networks and Savvis would like a word with you, about this expense called "bandwidth". Apparently, it isn't free!

      You can claim the price should have dropped when you actually see Apple's bandwidth bill (Akamai isn't cheap), royalty payments, and revenue sheets. I imagine they aren't making near as much as you think.

      That said, this new tiered pricing is bullshit. The old $1.79 (I'm in NZ, not USA) was pretty ridiculous since there was a store that used to sell for $1.50, but now with the $1.99 on iTunes, every other music store will just ramp up their prices like when iTunes showed up in the first place.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by Maserati · · Score: 1

      > Short reason: there's no physical thing to
      > produce, package, ship, display, etc.

      Short response: bandwidth and datacenters.

      Bandwidth costs for the ITMS add up, Apple only gets 30% from each sale, so they're focused on that margin. There's also the somewhat obscure fact that while hard drives are cheap, "managed storage" with backups, backup power, 24-hour sysadmin coverage, emergency power supplies, multiple high-bandwidth uplinks, insurance et al adds up to a hefty sum.

      Just because you're only shipping bits doesn't mean there isn't a significant cost associated.

      > With Amazon and ITMS and the others, they can't
      > pack one or two hits on an album and expect you
      > and I to shell out $16 for it.

      I'll give you that, singles were wildly popular back in the vinyl days but faded as the album became king. Anyone remember "cassingles" ? Consumers love a la carte and the big record labels absolutely hate it. If they'd just factor in back catalog sales and call it even we'd all be much happier.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    5. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      What is the entire album selling for on iTunes? If it's even close to $14 for the entire album, it's a rip-off.

      You can buy an entire album from iTunes for $10. Here's Apple's press release on it, iTunes Introduces Complete My Album, dated 29 March 2007. I don't know if that's only the DRMed music though. Even if it is though to upgrade DRMed songs cost $.30 per song and if there's 10 songs on an album that's only $13.

      Falcon

    6. Re:Staying with DRM isn't pro-consumer by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      "But you finally own what you buy."

      Just because DRM is gone, doesn't change the fact that the Music companies still think they are licensing you the right to listen to the song (coincidently they want to push it further to meaning that you can listen to it in one format).

      Before all of this, you could burn the itunes song to CD and then rerip it and remove the DRM anyway. Nothing has changed except now Apple has opened the door to more expensive music.

      I would have been more excited if:

      - they allowed you periodic redownloads of already purchased music.
      - offered options in quality of downloaded music (128 still sucks, 320Kbps should be standard by now and though still not acceptable when compared to CD quality).
      - offered more than what you get with a CD for a digital download (all music videos too for example and the ability to get videos as they are released).

  40. Don't bet on 8 real hours... by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My Libretto was rated for 8 hours with the fat battery pack, but I never got more than 5-6 hours. That was still enough to keep me from having to join the tethered geeks near the wall at conferences, but only because I had two batteries and could leave one charging in my room... then swap it out at the lunch break and before the evening sessions.

    Not to mention that you don't want to risk a non-removable "iBattery" turning into something like this like my original Macbook Pro's did.

    1. Re:Don't bet on 8 real hours... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Apple are usually quite accurate in their battery estimates, unlike very other company I have ever dealt with. They ever underestimated their performance according to some benchmarking.

    2. Re:Don't bet on 8 real hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My almost two year old MacBook gets 5 hours of batterytime playing video.
      Great for those flights without in-seat power.

    3. Re:Don't bet on 8 real hours... by argent · · Score: 1

      Could be, could be, but I'm pretty sure they didn't list two hour battery life on the box my own Macbook Pro came in.

    4. Re:Don't bet on 8 real hours... by localman · · Score: 1

      Good point -- I had three MBP batteries fail on me in the past two years by swelling up like that. With a removable it was no biggie, just drop it off and keep using my backup battery. (It was covered under warranty) If I'd have had to leave the whole laptop it would have been a much bigger hassle.

  41. I think I'll invent a car by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

    And require all buyers to sign a EULA that they have to return it to base to be refilled with fuel.....for a nominal service charge of course. Hmmmm, names, lemmiesee......iCar maybe??

    1. Re:I think I'll invent a car by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Poor analogy. Refilling with fuel is the analogue to refilling the battery with power. A proper car analogy would be taking it to a garage to change whatever the internal part of an automobile that is used to contain its fuel is called, when needed, never for most people.

      Unrelatedly, what does unibody mean??

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:I think I'll invent a car by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      I'm guessing uni means "one" in this case, so it's an all enclosed "one body". Apple do like to invent things that have already been invented so who knows.

      It could be cop slang for another student bankrupted by university fees and the promise of high earnings, waking up to the fact that their degree is worthless, and the jobs market has evaporated having passed the suicide exam.

    3. Re:I think I'll invent a car by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Well, it's like a unitard... no, it means that the case and chassis of the machine is milled from a solid block of aluminium. So, it's not screwed together with different parts - it's a single, solid body. Makes it rigid, strong and light.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  42. Ho-hum. by rindeee · · Score: 1

    New iLife: Big whoop.

    DRM free Music: Again, big whoop. I dumped ITMS for Amazon a long time ago. With Amazon's tool that automatically dumps your purcahses into iTunes, the songs already being in MP3 format and no DRM it's a no-brainer.

    New MacBook 17": Okay, nice, but the freakin' Mini has needed an update for how many years now? I was really hoping and expecting to see a Mini refresh with some real video. It could be such a great set-top device. Oh well.

    1. Re:Ho-hum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Amazon's tool that automatically dumps your purcahses into iTunes, the songs already being in MP3 format and no DRM it's a no-brainer.

      Not really. mp4 is a superior format for some users. Basically, if the music players you use support it (the vast majority these days) then mp4 provides smaller file sizes for the same quality (or in the case of iTunes) higher quality in the same file size.

      Just my opinion as someone who has bought a few tracks from each of them, but mostly just buys CDs and rips them anyway so I have a good backup and they are re-sellable.

    2. Re:Ho-hum. by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Amazon is great, I have used it TONS since it opened. However I will gladly go back to iTunes. Why? Simple- better "site"- better layout, purchasing, slightly better selection (in my experience), and AAC simply blows the pants off MP3 and every device I have supports it.

  43. I wanted iPod news. by ACAx1985 · · Score: 1

    I wanted, nay, needed an announcement of a new iPod (something bigger than 160). I guess I have to wait til September?

    1. Re:I wanted iPod news. by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      I wanted, nay, needed an announcement of a new iPod (something bigger than 160).

      You must have missed the last refreshment to the iPod lineup.

      The 160GB model is no more, they dropped the 'upgraded' option. The new Classics are only available in 120GB for $249.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    2. Re:I wanted iPod news. by ACAx1985 · · Score: 1

      I saw it, obviously. I'm hoping for a 160+.

  44. Bunk! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    How does the fact that it is not removeable affect its shape by 40%? The only way I could see that happening is if the battery was the size of a watch battery. After all, all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism (which could be just a simple screw).

    I could see the *COST* of the battery being 40% more, but not the shape.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Bunk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism

      And an independent casing around the battery, which not only takes up space but impacts how the battery will dissipate heat.

      And you don't have as much flexibility as to the overall shape of the battery or its location in the laptop.

    2. Re:Bunk! by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      a customer-removable battery can't be in a place that's obstructed from easy removal by things like the motherboard

    3. Re:Bunk! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does the fact that it is not removeable affect its shape by 40%?

      Well for one, the battery compartment takes space. External shielding takes up space. Most of all, the battery has to be a certain shape to fit into and out of a laptop .

      Take a look at any laptop battery. They can't be the footprint of the entire laptop because there would be no way to install it. They have to be brick shaped. By making the battery non-removable, the battery can be optimizied to take as much space internally as it needs. If you at the MacBook Air, you'd see that 2/3s of the internal space of the machine is battery. You can't do that with a removable battery.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Bunk! by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does the fact that it is not removeable affect its shape by 40%?

      Here's a hypothetical cross section:
      Traditional Laptop:
      Laptop Case - Battery Case - Battery Cells - Battery Case - Laptop Case
      1mm + 1m + 3mm + 1mm + 1mm

      MBP:
      Latop Case - Battery Cells - Laptop Case
      1mm + 3mm + 1mm

      Overall thickness reduced by 2mm. The "Battery" part is reduced from 5mm to 3mm, saving 40%, by not having to give the battery a redundant plastic shell.

      The only way I could see that happening is if the battery was the size of a watch battery. After all, all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism (which could be just a simple screw).

      Not really a valid example. Comparing the can requirements of a 1 volt battery that delivers milliamps to a 10-14Volt 1-3amp battery. The much larger and more powerful battery needs more insulation and rigidity etc to prevent it from shorting out, catching fire, exploding, etc. In the MBP this is taken care of by the laptop case. In a removable battery, the battery has to have its own suitable enclosure.

      Remember "40%" may seem like a lot, but we're talking about a laptop that's only a dozen mm thick. Removing a couple mm thickness from a single part is a BIG deal.

    5. Re:Bunk! by Drathos · · Score: 1

      In addition to your latch and contacts, there's also the internal structure to contain said removable battery and the case of the removable battery. By having a non-removable battery, they save on both of these.

      --
      End of line..
    6. Re:Bunk! by Pinback · · Score: 1

      Both the laptop and the battery have space tied up in the connector. A non-swappable batter connector should be smaller.

      It may also simplify the internal portion of the power supply to not need to handle battery removal/replacement while the laptop is on.

      Handling a batch of bad batteries is going to be more painful when the whole laptop needs to go to the shop, however.

    7. Re:Bunk! by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Wow what planet are you from? 1mm is a reasonable size for the battery mechanism, and yes you can save that by not making the battery removable, but

      A) you only save it on one side (the laptop case does not generally extend below the battery case - the bottom of the battery case is part of the laptop case.

      B) Short of something like a PDA, the concept of a 3mm battery case is ABSURD. You realize 3mm is slightly less than 1/8th of an inch? My cell phone's battery is about 3mm. A single AAA cell, ignoring casing, is probably at least 6mm (diameter) if not more. My tablet PC, which has the thinnest laptop battery I've ever seen (and runs for 5 hours on it) has a battery at least half an inch thick, including case. Take out the case and it's still going to be 10mm or so.

      In summary, eliminating those parts of the case that make the battery removable (the chemicals still need to be separated from the computer components, of course) probably saves you at most 20% (on a 17" desktop replacement, probably closer to 10%). That's not insignificant, but it's not something I'd put up with in a $2800 computer.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    8. Re:Bunk! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      After all, all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism (which could be just a simple screw).

      A laptop battery is made up of smaller individual cells, which (if the ones I've taken apart are any guide) are usually off-the-shelf cylindrical types, one of the worst shapes for efficient packing. There's also the on-board monitor circuitry, and if the terminals are going to be even close to sturdy enough to survive being thrown in a bag unprotected without breaking or shorting at the first opportunity they need some kind of housing, which is wasted space inside the computer when in use. Even the plastic case itself has a volume greater than zero, which has to be taken into account.

      A removable battery also means that you have to design the computer's internals so nothing extends into the area reserved for the battery, or looking at it from the other perspective, you can't shoehorn cells into any spare space because they have to be removable as a single, self-contained module. That can mean wasted space, depending on the size and shape of other components.

      Frankly, 40% sounds a little high to me, but there would definitely be space savings with a built-in battery. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, though.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    9. Re:Bunk! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      A) you only save it on one side (the laptop case does not generally extend below the battery case - the bottom of the battery case is part of the laptop case.

      1) On some laptops yes, on others no. I have several laptops where that isn't true; including from Apple. And of course, Apple's marketing department is going to go with the relative comparison that makes the numbers as impressive as possible.

      2) The numbers were hypothetical to make the point (and I said so up front), not actual.

      My tablet PC, which has the thinnest laptop battery I've ever seen (and runs for 5 hours on it) has a battery at least half an inch thick, including case. Take out the case and it's still going to be 10mm or so.

      Take a look at the battery in the macbook air. The new MBP probably has a very similiar design.

      http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080215/147525/

      Scroll down to the 5th or 6th picture, where they look at the battery. The actual cells might well be ~3mm thick; especially if you factor in that the "battery" there still includes some minimal plastic packaging and cushioning.

    10. Re:Bunk! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Why are you giving the battery a separate plastic shell? Why not simply make the outer casing of the battery the same as the outer casing of the laptop?

      Think of it this way. Take a hollow, empty laptop shell. Put your non-removeable laptop battery in place, and hot glue it to the case. Now take a knife or a dremel, and cut around the outline of the battery. Voila, your non removeable battery is now a removeable battery. Now instead of cutting the hole manually, you design the case with the hole already there, and you design the battery so that it matches the case, and can be held in place by a screw or two. A couple of contact pads on the battery, and leaf spring contacts inside the laptop battery cavity, and you're all set. Such mods would take, maybe one or two percent of the battery volume.

      If you want the battery to be protected during travel, etc, then build a separate protective case for it, the same way you have jewel cases for CD/DVDs. No need for that to be part of the battery or the laptop.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Bunk! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Those pictures are fake just like all the fake dinosaur bones that scientists stuck in the ground.

    12. Re:Bunk! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way. Take a hollow, empty laptop shell. Put your non-removeable laptop battery in place, and hot glue it to the case. Now take a knife or a dremel, and cut around the outline of the battery. Voila, your non removeable battery is now a removeable battery. Now instead of cutting the hole manually, you design the case with the hole already there, and you design the battery so that it matches the case, and can be held in place by a screw or two. A couple of contact pads on the battery, and leaf spring contacts inside the laptop battery cavity, and you're all set. Such mods would take, maybe one or two percent of the battery volume.

      That would still limit the shape of your battery in a number of ways. What if the battery was a giant thin pancake.

      Take a look at the battery in the macbook air... for example.

      Your access slot would run the length of an entire side of the PC. This would significantly impact the structural integrity of the laptop. It would also be a really flimsy battery, and even if you had a separate 'jewel case' to put it in; it would be particularly vulnerable going from one to the other and not something users should be encouraged to do, and a certain percentage of users wouldn't use it at all... and unlike CD's this thing is pretty volatile. It would take maybe a week for a class action lawsuit because some twits burned their houses down.

    13. Re:Bunk! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      A) you only save it on one side (the laptop case does not generally extend below the battery case - the bottom of the battery case is part of the laptop case.

      Arrrgh, such nonsense! When have you ever seen a laptop battery that is only cased on one side, and the naked cells are exposed on the top?

      My cell phone's battery is about 3mm

      Yes, and much of that thickness is due to the protective casing! If it weren't encased, it would be significantly smaller.

      In summary, eliminating those parts of the case that make the battery removable (the chemicals still need to be separated from the computer components, of course) probably saves you at most 20% (on a 17" desktop replacement, probably closer to 10%).

      I think the calculations of Apple's engineers, who actually built the thing, would be more reliable than some random internet guy who apparently doesn't understand much about battery construction or laptop engineering.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  45. what flight are you on? Re:Battery?! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    You are not going to be using your laptop the entire time anyway since people have to eat, get up and use the toilet and potentially take a nap.

    It recently took me 8 hours (with connection delays) to fly from upstate New York to Minnesota. The airport where my delays were didn't have any outlets available for charging my laptop, and neither of the planes I flew on could do that, either. If I hadn't had the second battery with me for my thinkpad I would not have been able to work during the layover delay and into the second flight.

    Sure there are plenty of people who travel on long single flights but a lot of us are also traveling through connections and short hops also. One battery is just not enough for all of us.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  46. Where have you been? by argent · · Score: 1

    That said, Apple is also now charging...

    NOW charging?

    They've been charging 30c to upgrade from 128k AAC with DRM to 256k AAC without DRM since they first introduced the program in May 2007. They originally ALSO charged 30c more for the higher bit rate DRM-free songs, but dropped that in October 2007.

  47. Tiered Pricing Welcome Here by stewbacca · · Score: 2

    I'm all for tiered pricing schemes. Britney's "Womanizer" crap can sell for $1.29 all day long while I'm buying non-crap for $.69 and $.99

    The WORST thing about the iTunes store is the Top-10 seller lists. I haven't seen a track on there in years that I'd buy. And since those will be the target of $1.29 tracks, good for them for bilking people with horrible musical tastes.

    1. Re:Tiered Pricing Welcome Here by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      You're in for a shock then...

      Just wait. The "pop crap" will be the $0.69 tracks to boost their chart ratings. The less popular stuff will be more expensive.

    2. Re:Tiered Pricing Welcome Here by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      The WORST thing about the iTunes store is the Top-10 seller lists. I haven't seen a track on there in years that I'd buy.

      Them damn kids with their crap music and their pink nanos and their ranked multiplayer death matches! Who do they think they are?

      (waves cane angrily!)

  48. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Apple has pretty much always been a rip off"

    Couldn't agree with you more.

  49. PS: Apple did it before Amazon... by argent · · Score: 1

    Oh, I hadn't noticed this, in all the other flaming and innuendo:

    I applaud the people over at Amazon (and everyone else selling music without DRM) for doing it first.

    eMusic has been selling DRM-free for a long time, but no major labels.

    Apple introduced iTunes Plus in May 2007, with their EMI catalog, the first major label to go DRM-free.

    Amazon followed up with the their MP3 service in September 2007, with EMI and Universal.

  50. No way to choose what to upgrade to iTunes + :( by Alphab.fr · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't believe I can't pick the songs I want to upgrade to iTunes plus ! All or nothing! I have tons of songs purchased on iTunes... when the previous label went DRM-free, I could choose which ones to upgrade and what not. This is not the case anymore, it's all or nothing, all upfront. I have LOTS of iTunes songs, so upgrading all would be VERY expensive. Some of them I listen continuously and they could user the higher bitrate, some other I never listen or are fine at 128k AAC. There's no other word: this SUCKS!

  51. Well, Copyright may soon be wacked by Copywrite · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    http://www.petitiononline.com/ToUS_SCt/petition.html Dear Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice David H. Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Samuel A. Alito:

    We are writing to you regarding the case of Dr. Dongxiao Yue v. Sun Microsystems, et al., which is set for conference in January 2009 (Information of the case can be found at www.American-Justice.org and YouTube).

    In November 2007, Dr. Yue sued defendants for pirating his PowerRPC software. Evidence included defendants' internal documents showing Sun knowingly sold unauthorized and unlimited copies of PowerRPC to others. However, in March 2008, former U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins dismissed Dr. Yue's lawsuit without ruling on any of the copyright claims.

    The District Court then awarded defendants $219,949.90 of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 505 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

    While Dr. Yue's appeal is ongoing, on December 15, 2008, the District Court issued a Writ of Execution directing county sheriff to take possession of Dr. Yue's assets (primarily his copyrights and his family home where his two young children live), despite Dr. Yue's request for humanitarian consideration. Dr. Yue's application for stay at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was summarily denied without any explanation.

    Awarding software pirates under U.S. Copyright Act would encourage infringement of intellectual property and would be detrimental to U.S. economy. The lower courts should have provided Dr. Yue equal protection as other American copyright owners.

    We respectfully request that your Honor carefully consider Dr. Yue's arguments before the Supreme Court and make an equitable decision.

    Sincerely,

    The Undersigned

    Justice need to be served by Supreme court 17.Dr. CHONG WANG Based on my own judgment, some personal retaliation has been involved in this case, thus a more objective, thorough, fair trial is need. 16.Yong Li This is a typical case demonstrated judges' bias, snoblish, racisim and injustice. 15.Ming Wei The case will have a profound effect on the protection of copyright including the copyrights of numerous American products worldwide. PA, USA14.Roy Owens Justice for Yue2 Otisfield St , Mass13.Charles Heckman Typical Ninth Circuit tyrannyWashington, U.S.A.12.John Peterson Dr. Yue has the truth and should be granted justice 11.Facheng Lee save justice! save Dr Yue! 10.line voided 9.Betsy Combier We must abide by the Constitution and rule of law, and protect Dr. Yue's due process rights 8.Carl Bernofsky The shabby treatment of pro-se litigants by the courts must stop. Dr. Yue has clearly stated the case for infringement of his copywrite rights, and the courts must permit genuine due process to go forward in this matter.Shreveport, Louisiana7.kang li protect the human rightstoronto, canada6.robert lackman Give Dr Yue justice 5.Carol Long This illegal court abuse is going on all over the USA. In San Diego the courts are a mess. Allowing purjury and many other laws to be broken. What next, please allow Dr. Yue to win this case. 4.Cheryl Kennedy Dr. Yue has a Constitutional Right to be heard at a jury trial. The corruption and judicial misconduct in the U.S. Court system is a disgrace. Big business harms the small guy intentionally, and payoffs become a big question within the system. 3.Thomas J. Rodeffer This is a typical example of how corrupt the Judicial system here in the U.S. is! There is no justice for the lay person who is the back-bone of the tax-base!3923 Ryan Drive, SW2.George Edward McDermott United States District Court Judge should be removed from office for committing treason against the Constitution and fraud against the court. For denying due

  52. Face it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple is not going to destroy their business model to protect your $200 monitor investment. They have 9.7 million people eager to buy macs that have tight hardware integration. The person determined to keep their five year old Nec Multisync LCD to save $200 is NOT the iMac target market!!!

    1. Re:Face it... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yeah... nevermind things like avoiding waste and being environmentally conscious.

      Fill up those landfills!

      Steve Jobs: If you consumption isn't conspicous enough get off my lawn, er out of my store.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Face it... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You can buy decent 27" monitors for $200? Where?!?!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Face it... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      If you are too stupid to hook up an external LCD to an iMac, you should stick to your Dell.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  53. Wireless by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because with Apple the AirPort Express is your "dock", as most of what you're asking for can already be done wirelessly. Plug your speakers and your printer into your Express, and you're good to go the second you set your notebook down.

    Use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. No wires. Do Time Machine backups to Time Capsule. No wires. Actual, physical wires are so... '80s.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Wireless by hcdejong · · Score: 0

      Wireless, schmireless. You need a power cord anyway (unless your work day is 4h, and even that is optimistic). Then there's the monitor (laptop screens just aren't big enough to work comfortably) and the inevitable USB peripherals. Any nontrivial-size Wifi network sucks, so you need an Ethernet cable as well. Might as well go whole hog and use wired KB and mouse, with the added benefit that if you choose a decent KB, you get a USB hub thrown in [1]. Plus there's more choice in wired keyboards, and you don't get the hassle of changing batteries.

      Wireless sacrifices a lot in the name of not having to plug stuff in.

      1: unless your favorite keyboard is stuck in the PS2 stone age (get with the program, Microsoft!)

    2. Re:Wireless by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have a wireless monitor? Where you get it?

      Also wireless keyboards and mice use some kind of battery. Which has a bad habit of dying at the worst time. At your office, having a monitor, corded keyboard, and mouse is not out of the realm of possibilities. Being able to go in your office/cube slide in or drop in your laptop. Turn it on and use the regular keyboard, mouse, and monitor is a very good thing. I know a few people that dual monitor their docked laptops while at work.

      And exactly is a wireless network your dock? And as others have said, wireless doesn't always cut it for work functions.

    3. Re:Wireless by shmlco · · Score: 1

      First, the article is discussing their new 17" 1920x1200 notebook. There's no use having a desktop replacement notebook with a screen that size if you're not "comfortable" using it.

      Second, if you really have that much crap to plug into your computer (everyone always goes for the worst case), then get a friggin' DESKTOP machine and stop compromising with notebook-scale components and limitations on processors, RAM, and hard drives. Add a smaller notebook for on the go situations and you're set.

      Which, BTW, is what I do. I have a 24" iMac for work, and a 15" MBP for travel. (I also did the wireless bit with an older 17" MBP, so I know it works. Set it down, pop in the mag safe, and I was off to the races.)

      Finally, I tried the new "mag safe" monitor at an Apple store, and it takes maybe two seconds with the new connectors to plug in power, monitor, and USB. Even quicker to disconnect. Which, BTW, is a major advantage over my old Dell which DID have a slid in dock, and from which unlocking and disconnecting was a major procedure.

      Docks are not all they're made out to be either...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    4. Re:Wireless by xolo · · Score: 1

      Use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. No wires. Do Time Machine backups to Time Capsule. No wires. Actual, physical wires are so... '80s.

      Wireless is also inherently insecure. It makes key logging a breeze.

    5. Re:Wireless by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Powercord? Monitor? Some of us also like our gigE connections and "wireless" doesn't cut it.

      But I guess it wouldn't be very fanboi of you to admit to a shortcoming, would it? While I own a powerbook and use it for work, saying there's no need for a dock like dell provides for nearly their entire line-up is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

      There's absolutely NOTHING Apple currently provides that comes even close the the ease of use of Dell's docking stations.

    6. Re:Wireless by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I agree with you.

      And I disagree with making the battery nonremovable. When I buy a laptop the first thing I do is sell the battery on Amazon or ebay, so I can make a quick 50-70 dollars. I never use my laptop except with a power cord (typically a hotel).

      TRIVIA:

      The first time ever laptops have outsold desktops in Q3'08 (by 0.4 million units). People seem to be migrating towards the smaller more flexible form factor of a portable computer.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Wireless by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      YMMV, of course, but given the choice between having a laptop (with compromised hardware) OR having two machines (incl. the chore of keeping them synchronised), I'll take a laptop, thanks. I've got a 20" monitor plus KB and mouse at the two places I use it most, and can live with just the laptop and a mouse when I'm on the road.

      What continues to bug me is the insistence people have on having no wires. For me, the tradeoffs are such that it's rarely, if ever, worth it. The BT mouse and keyboard I use with my media PC eat batteries; I can't sync my Palmpilot over BT because my laptop switches off BT to save power, which throws away the BT conduit so I have to set up again every time I want to sync, wifi is slow if there's more than one user on the network. There's always something that doesn't work properly, and all this can be avoided if you just use a damn wire. It's nice to have the option, but it's not a solution that works everywhere, all the time. It's a COMPROMISE, not something to drool over.

    8. Re:Wireless by warrior_s · · Score: 1

      Because with Apple the AirPort Express is your "dock", as most of what you're asking for can already be done wirelessly. Plug your speakers and your printer into your Express, .

      The only thing here is that you can not plug your speakers into the airport express.
      http://store.apple.com/us-hed/product/MB053?mco=MjU4NjAzNA#overview

    9. Re:Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, if you really have that much crap to plug into your computer (everyone always goes for the worst case), then get a friggin' DESKTOP machine and stop compromising

      Standard apple fanboi response. "If you're not doing things the way apple envisioned, then clearly you are wrong and must instead do things the One True Apple way".

    10. Re:Wireless by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The only thing here is that you can not plug your speakers into the airport express.

      USB speakers?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:Wireless by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Also wireless keyboards and mice use some kind of battery. Which has a bad habit of dying at the worst time.

      Are you saying this from experience or are you saying it because you've had a walkman run down while sitting on a bus or something? I've been wireless for over a year, know people that have gone far longer, and batteries are something none of us are griping about. I suppose in a worst case scenario you could have a cheapy wired mouse ready to go. Honestly, though, the 'innportune failure' isn't typically a sudden stop. My Mac, for example, gives me a warning that the battery's going. My Logitech MX Revolution has a battery indicator that lights up every time I move the mouse. My girlfriend's Microsoft KB and Mouse, they start to get flakey, but still usable. Besides all that, I've yet to work in an office enviornment that wasn't stocked to the gills with batteries.

      Being able to go in your office/cube slide in or drop in your laptop. Turn it on and use the regular keyboard, mouse, and monitor is a very good thing.

      Sure, I get that, especially if you take your laptop around. The whole dock concept pretty much died, though, when USB became ubiquitous. Back in the olden days you could get docks that had CD-ROMs, hard drives, PCI slots, you name it. Nowawadys that's just silly. Notebooks aren't far behind desktops in terms of graphic support. Hard drives and optical drives are a USB port away. Heck, LCDs on laptops have gotten advanced enough that monitors just aren't a BFD anymore. There's a point of diminishing returns here.

      I didn't bother with a dock for my laptop. (Yes, they make one....) Instead I opted for the nicest screen I could get and two extra power supplies. One to keep at my office, one to carry in my bag. I really don't spend any significant amount of time plugging or unplugging the machine every day. I can just close the lid, let it go into suspend, and pick things up at home. Back at the height of dock-popularity, you actually had to go through an ejection procedure in Windows. I do not miss this. Both OSX and Windows can (usually) handle a missing USB device. But a dock? Well I dunno about the Mac side of it, but back in the day Windows often went into "oh shit!" mode whenever that large bit of hardware suddenly went missing. I remember the sales people in the company I worked at just got in the habit of shutting down the laptop whenever they wanted to undock it. Yick.

      Maybe I'm actually a bit biased against docks for that reason. I don't know. I do understand your point, though, even if my personal experience doesn't quite measure up to it.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:Wireless by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about the battery issue, though it has gotten much better. But if the only plug left is a monitor, how is that different from a dock which also requires 1 "plug" (the docking itself). Docks certainly serve a purpose, don't get me wrong, but I agree is has been greatly diminished over the last few years.

    13. Re:Wireless by willy_me · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have a wireless monitor? Where you get it?

      The new Apple displays are not wireless, but they do come with an adapter for supplying your laptop with power. It might not be the same as a dock but it is close. Three little connectors plug into the side of your laptop and you're good to go.

      More info can be found here..

    14. Re:Wireless by shmlco · · Score: 1

      The AirPort Express has an audio mini-jack built into the device. iTunes picks up on it right away. How do you think AirTunes works?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    15. Re:Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did bother to get a dock

      Printer + DVB-T + Mic + Stereo + Keyboard + Mouse, + Ethernet + Screen 1 + Screen 2 + Tablet + Power ...

      thats about 11 plugs, 6 if you have one USB hub connected, still much more hassle than just sliding it onto the dock...

    16. Re:Wireless by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      The only thing here is that you can not plug your speakers into the airport express.
      http://store.apple.com/us-hed/product/MB053?mco=MjU4NjAzNA#overview [apple.com]

      You can't? Gee, then how do I get sound out of the speakers I have plugged into my Airport Express?

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    17. Re:Wireless by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You could take care of the Stereo and Mic by using an external USB sound card. (You may even enjoy better recording quality since the hardware's so far away from the mobo... YMMV.) Mouse and KB? Wireless. Honestly I don't see why you'd need more than four, and I'm assuming the ethernet is a must have as it often is.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:Wireless by Garganus · · Score: 1

      multifail. As the other said, you say the Express cannot send audio; it can. Your link is to the higher-ed Apple Education Store, which requires filling out a form (and lying in my case) to click through. You link to the Extreme not the Express.

      $99, portable, 802.11n wireless access point, print server, and airTunes music streaming client, AirPort Express.

    19. Re:Wireless by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I wish I had mod points to give you. I never knew you could do that with the power adapter from the Cinema Displays.

      And what few people don't know is the monitor connectors are no longer large bulky connectors with a ton of breakable pins and huge screws to bolt them in.

      Does it keep the macbook on though once I plug it in?

    20. Re:Wireless by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      You have a wireless monitor? Where you get it?

      Have you seen any of the laptop stands for the MacBook? You stick your keyboard under the stand, and it positions the laptop's display into a very comfortable location. (The stand is also cheaper then a 2'nd monitor.)

      Combine the stand with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, and all you have to do is just plug the laptop in! The Macbook's speakers sound better then most desktop speakers, although you can use a Bluetooth audio transmitter if you need to.

  54. Turly DRM Free? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure the tracks are going DRM free, but will iTunes still prevent me from copying music from my iPod to a new iTunes library? It's incredibly annoying to me that any time I move PCs or operating systems that I can't easily move songs off of my iPod. The tracks may be DRM free all the way through, but it still exists if I can't move my library as I see fit.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Turly DRM Free? by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Informative

      red chair software.

      nuff said.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Turly DRM Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just copy the data from one computer to another? All I've ever done was to just copy over the iTunes Music Folder

    3. Re:Turly DRM Free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think you have the wrong model. Your iPod is a player that contains a repository of your music on your computer. If you want to move music as backup data, you will have to use your iPod as a HD. As for managing your iPod on multiple computers, as long they are the same OS, it can be done.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Turly DRM Free? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      If you haven't worked out how to do that for yourself yet then this isn't the site for you.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    5. Re:Turly DRM Free? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1
      Slashdot fits just fine, but you trolls always manage to strike a nerve..

      I can't easily move songs off of my iPod.

      What part of that quote implies I haven't figured it out yet? Your comprehension skills are beyond repair or you are willfully ignoring them. I suggest you move along to the next article before someone else beats you to First Post.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    6. Re:Turly DRM Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? All the DRM free stuff I've downloaded can be moved from computer to computer without problems. No need to log into my Apple account and authorize that computer to play that song.

      You're confused.

    7. Re:Turly DRM Free? by critical_point · · Score: 1

      Use Amarok, it does exactly what you desire. You don't even need to install a linux distribution, just use a live cd that has Amarok on it and that will let you transfer from an ipod to your hard drive using easy graphical menus.

    8. Re:Turly DRM Free? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Better yet "Show Hidden Items".

    9. Re:Turly DRM Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're on Slashdot, you should damn well have the skills to copy the music without iTunes' help. Google it, for Christ's sake!

    10. Re:Turly DRM Free? by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't prevent you from copying music from an iPod to another computer. Many third party applications will do this for. Apple just doesn't add an easy feature to iTunes specifically for this purpose which is a long, long way from preventing you from doing it.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    11. Re:Turly DRM Free? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      Amarok is my favorite MP3 player, by far the best in any class. Unfortunately, I upgraded to the 80GB iPod Classic and the "ipod:/" kioslave isn't compatible so Amarok support is now broken on my system / iPod combo. I haven't tried updating my box to see if the Amarok or iPod kioslave developers have caught up to Apple's newest bag of obfuscation tricks yet.

      In any case (and contrary to what most people have replied about) I can rip my iPod library using a handful of third party tools, but that wasn't the point of my OP. DRM on the internal library is just as annoying to me as DRM on the tracks themselves.

      Additionally, it's much more of a pain to help others (like my younger sister who just lost her hard drive) to do the same because she isn't armed with Linux, and most 3rd party tools want to charge for the convenience. A portable 80GB hard drive that plays MP3s loses usefulness when it doesn't also serve as a valid backup for the collection that I store on it.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  55. Re:Darn... no iPhone update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there will likely be an "awesome" update around June which is when the original 2G customers contracts will expire.

  56. Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller") by hwyhobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple needs to look harder at the road warrior market. 17" is way too large for those folks (or should I say "us"?). 15" is borderline. We need matte display on smaller MBPs, not 17". Please don't tell me about properly designed workplace. When I am at my desk, I can connect to my real monitor. I need to use laptop screen when I am on the road, where I do not have control over ambient lighting. Reflective sucks, plain and simple, Apple fanboy protestations notwithstanding.

    Best yet, design a 12" MBP with a video card supporting at least 1920x1200 external monitor and a field-replaceable hard drive. If you have to do 15", then make it something weird, like 1680x800, so that the monitor is wide but low, so it can be easily opened and used on a plane, where a lot of work is done. If you have no idea what I am talking about, please do not post "I have no idea what you're talking about" proving the obvious.

    Replaceable battery would be nice, but I can live with a built-in if it is 8 hours, provided it can be quickly replaced (while you wait) at an Apple store by one of their techs.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  57. wrong. wrong wrong by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They stated it can be charged 1000 times. That means if you use your laptop every day you will need a new one in 2.7 years.

    if you use it every day, including saturdays and sundays, FOR 8 HOURS A DAY, then in 2.7 years, the battery will be down to an 80% charge or 6.4 hours. Which is longer than your current 5 hour battery lasts.

    I seriously doubt many users use a computer 7 days a week, soley on batteries for 8 hours a day!

    finally you can replace the battery. There's just no simple pop-out mechanism. But unscrewing the case once in the life of a computer is not a big deal.

    Additionally Apple care will cover the battery for 3 years-- that's not something you get on most warantee contracts.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  58. True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, some people can get the nonstop flight from LA to NYC, and survive on a single battery. But not everyone is that lucky. Many of us have to go through one or more layovers to get from where we work to where we are having a meeting. And as the airlines consolidate, and hubs lose their hub status, the layover will become more and more commonplace for travelers.

    Add to that the lack of available wall outlets at so many airports - as well as the lack of any sort of outlet on most planes - and you'll see that it is not unusual for a single trip to require more than 8 hours of battery power.

    A trip I took recently that was just less than 1,000 miles "as the crow flies" took me over 8 hours of real time. And I'm sure I'm not the only person with a laptop who has experienced this.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

      people on 8+ hour flights who need to use their laptop the entire time

      For one thing, it is worth noting that "8 hour batteries" often get 8 hours when you're playing solitaire or typing a word document. If you are doing anything that is intensive in a computational or storage manner, you are generally lucky to get half the expected battery life.

      and don't use airlines with power in the seats

      Power in the seats? If I had the option I would take it. I don't think I've been on a plane in the last 4 years that had that as an option. It is not unusual for me to fly over 10,000 miles per year, and not a single mile of the last 4 years has been on a plane that had power available in any seats (minus perhaps in the cockpit).

      If you're home and/or destination airport isn't regularly served by large aircraft with power in the seats, then you are just SOL in that regard.

      something to get worked up about.

      Worked up? Not really. I'm just saying that if they are really concerned about real road warriors they've missed the mark. There are plenty of people for whom an expensive laptop like this is a great way to go, but there are plenty of people who would still be better served by a removable battery.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by hwyhobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A trip I took recently that was just less than 1,000 miles "as the crow flies" took me over 8 hours of real time. And I'm sure I'm not the only person with a laptop who has experienced this.

      You are not the only one. I routinely travel 16+ hours. However, I find it easier to find an outlet to do a quick recharge during a layover, than I would opening a 17" laptop on a plane, unless I was traveling business class (and how many companies do that routinely these days?). So, I find the concepts of "road warrior" and 17" laptop to be less than ideally compatible. See my previous post for more on that.

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    3. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by PintoPiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps true road warriors might consider their options and 1) not purchase a 17" laptop which would be way too big to open on a plane, 2) consider that the rigors of travel add sufficient stress that the idea of doing more than 8 hours of actually productive work is lunacy, 3) a much cheaper video iPod would be a superior solution in the Mac stable for video/music entertainment if entertainment is the goal rather than work, or maybe 4) not purchase this device, and instead purchase any of the countless other devices in the world with a replaceable battery.

      If we take Apple's claims at face value that they were faced with a design tradeoff between replaceable batteries and battery life, I suggest that most users would rather have the battery life than the replaceable battery. Perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Perhaps our market economy will fulfill the needs of those exceptional people adequately. One can hope.

    4. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by fbartho · · Score: 1

      First time I had seat power jacks was when I flew with continental this past saturday from Cancun to Houston (My flight was booked with Northwest, but they shifted carriers for that leg of my flight). It was great. They however also had touchscreen displays at every seat and had a list of 20 current movies and 20 ish tv shows and a few touchscreen games that you could play for free. The problem was that the flgiht was barely 2.5hrs and what with the periods of time where we couldn't watch (take off and landing and PA announcements) we didn't even have time to watch the whole movie. If I hadn't fiddled with that though I could have watched something on my laptop, which now has a crap battery life, and so the jack would have been well needed.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    5. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I find the concepts of "road warrior" and 17" laptop to be less than ideally compatible

      I definitely agree with that statement. I use a 14-point-something inch laptop myself, which I find to be a nearly perfect size for doing actual work on the road (or on a plane as it may be).

      However, doesn't Apple have a tendency to do trickle-down technology through their lines? I would suspect that if they sell enough of these 17 inch laptops with built-in batteries, they will use that as justification for doing the same on smaller units as well.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      not purchase a 17" laptop which would be way too big to open on a plane

      Definitely agreed.

      consider that the rigors of travel add sufficient stress that the idea of doing more than 8 hours of actually productive work is lunacy

      I would say that is a conditional statement. If you are spending an entire working day traveling for work, your employer might or might not have expectations that you will actually do work during said travel time.

      a much cheaper video iPod would be a superior solution in the Mac stable for video/music entertainment if entertainment is the goal rather than work

      If the goal is indeed entertainment, then I agree there are better options than a 17-inch notebook (or likely a notebook of any size really). I for one, however, do not remember the last time I used my notebook purely for entertainment. Sure it has a DVD drive but I don't even have DVD playing software on it right now. And unless you count the games that came with Windows XP or KUbuntu Linux, I don't have any games on my laptop, either.

      But people have told me I am a little odd...

      not purchase this device, and instead purchase any of the countless other devices in the world with a replaceable battery.

      That would be my choice.

      However, if Apple sells a fair number of these, I would expect that they would soon start implementing the non-replaceable battery in their smaller notebooks as well with the same justification.

      And if the non-replaceable battery really does yield the battery life improvement that they are claiming, then I wouldn't be surprised if other manufacturers later followed suit as well.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      I would suspect that if they sell enough of these 17 inch laptops with built-in batteries, they will use that as justification for doing the same on smaller units as well

      That would be nice, but judging from the fact that they took away the matte screen option in the latest 15" MBPs, it seems to be going the wrong direction for business users.

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    8. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by Naito · · Score: 1

      True road warriors really ought not be carrying a 17" laptop around anyway. Airport waiting areas and airline seats barely have room for your elbows as it is, you want to fill up what little space you have with a gigantic 17" laptop? yikes.

    9. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can almost certainly build a battery that hooks up to the adapter plug. It's DC by the time it gets to your laptop, right? So it should be pretty easy and no less efficient. I'm just sayin', if you're the Slashdot-reading type and you really need extra power, this is a simple project.

    10. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as well as the lack of any sort of outlet on most planes

      If that's an issue, why would you be interested in any 17-inch laptop, removable battery or not?

    11. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I routinely travel 16+ hours.

      How do you do that? It would drive me insane. I travel for work once every 12-18 months, and I even hate that.

    12. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      Why are true road warriors using 17" laptops? Don't you think that's a tad big?

    13. Re:True Road Warriors Need Removable Batteries by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      How do you do that? It would drive me insane.

      Did I claim sanity anywhere in my post? ;)

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  59. Re:what flight are you on? Re:Battery?! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Dude, are you trying to tell me that 8 hours is not enough? Even with it talking you 8 hours, you are not going to be able to use your laptop the entire time anyway. It takes a lot longer going through security these days even on domestic flights and any airport I've been to in Canada, the US or Europe had some outlets that you could plug into if you really needed to.

    One battery with a 5 hour charge might not be enough but 8 hours should be enough for everyone.

    If you ran out of juice after 8 hours unplugged, maybe you should take it as a sign that you are working too hard and that you should take a break.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  60. four divided by pi by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    retard.
    flat pack batteries have a 30% higher fill factor than cyllindrical batteries. that is 4/pi

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:four divided by pi by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That seems to be an advantage of rectangular cells rather than an advantage of making the battery non-removable

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:four divided by pi by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      That's why apple uses Lithium polymer (conformal) and not lithium ion (round). RTFA.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  61. You Might Be Missing The Point by Petersko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I don't see why anyone would pay the fee, just remove it yourself."

    Let's say last week I bought the album "Nothing's Free", by "The Capitalists". I paid $9.99. I can buy it this week, for $9.99, and it will be playable on every device I own right out of the gate.

    If I want that same freedom for my week-old purchase(assuming I'm a non-technical user), I have to pay $3.

    It's a straight up cash grab on Apple's part. They're willing to stick it to the client base that already paid.

    1. Re:You Might Be Missing The Point by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Last week I went to the bank and exchanged US dollars for the local currency. This week to get the same amount of local currency I have to pay $3 more. It's a straight up cash grab on the bank's part.

      Let me ask you this - if Apple had raised the price on what you bought last week would you send them the difference? Prices change. Last week was last week.

    2. Re:You Might Be Missing The Point by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Prices change, products change. This isn't some massive greedy conspiracy against you.

      Especially when it comes to the music labels, you should know by now that things like "removing drm" are the label's choice, not Apple's.

      All of your DVDs are still encrypted and you don't have the option to "upgrade" them to remove the encryption. If you bought DRM-encumbered music for $10 an album last week you were obviously OK with it. Why pitch a fit now?

    3. Re:You Might Be Missing The Point by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Let's say last week I bought the album "Nothing's Free", by "The Capitalists". I paid $9.99. I can buy it this week, for $9.99, and it will be playable on every device I own right out of the gate.

      If I want that same freedom for my week-old purchase(assuming I'm a non-technical user), I have to pay $3.

      It's a straight up cash grab on Apple's part. They're willing to stick it to the client base that already paid.

      If the DRM-encumbered album was worth $9.99 to you last week, then you got what you paid for, and you're welcome to continue listening to it under the terms you agreed to when you made the purchase.

      If the DRM-encumbered album was not worth $9.99 to you last week, then you shouldn't have bought it; you should have gone elsewhere or done without.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:You Might Be Missing The Point by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I bought product A last week, and this week they released product B, which is better, normally I'm stuck for the ENTIRE price of product B. There is no upgrade.

  62. Price Limits by Defectuous · · Score: 0

    As long as the song prices remain reasonable for the songs I am after. I have no issues with it. I had no problems with the $.99 a song. As long as I did not have to buy the album. I got the songs I wanted. The DRM was annoying, but I burned it all to an Emulation CD(Iso) and re-ripped it to be DRM Free. The DRM Free makes it easier to work with. So that's props in my book.
    As for a price limit, I'd be looking at no more $2 per song, before I start looking at torrents. And defiantly less than $15 per Album.

  63. Re:what flight are you on? Re:Battery?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The airport where my delays were didn't have any outlets available for charging my laptop

    That's a weak-assed airport. Also probably dirty, since I've never seen a place that doesn't have places for the cleaners to plug in.

  64. So fucking hang out by the off ramp light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So:

    1. fucking hang out by the off ramp light
    2. show a sign saying you're a war vet, and
    3. profit !!

    But if:

    1. someone hands you $0.40
    2. you spit in his face
    3. fuckin' hypocrit !!

    Moral of the story:

    You are one cheap mother fucker !!

    One blow 'til I'll take ya down, I'll take ya down
    One smoke and your head spins around and around
    Chrome mags, a million drags, a never lags
    An ol transport queen momma you never seen

    Hear a purrin motor
    And she's a burnin' fuel
    Push it over, baby
    We're makin love unto you

    Power booster, I'm talkin to God and more
    Crank it up and above my head
    Smell my shit eating grin on the skin of my world
    Six hundred sixty six miles per hour

    Hear a purrin motor
    And she's a burnin fuel
    Push it over, baby
    We're makin love

    Hear a purrin motor
    And she's a burnin' fuel
    -oh they were burnin
    Push it over, baby
    We're makin love unto you
    Makin love unto you
    -making

    Get back, get back a-rollin
    Get back, get back motherfucker
    Get back, get back a-rollin'
    Get back, get back motherfucker

  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. That's no docking station.. It's a breakout box! by itomato · · Score: 1

    What a hideous kludge!

    I can't believe any Apple user would buy and use that thing in daylight without wearing a mask and/or holding their nose..

  67. Re:iTunes DRM-free songs international or U.S. onl by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    iTunes is offering me the ability to upgrade my purchased music here in the UK, but is unable to do so at the moment (times out - I think everyone and his dog is hitting the store server right now), so it is international.

    UK price is 20p per song, or 25% of album price, so around £1.50 to £2.

    The iTunes store has been selling DRM-free songs for some time now, but only a limited selection - I have one or two of those tracks, since I tried to get those if they were available (naturally). The big news is the whole-store migration.

  68. mac mini done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so i guess they're phasing out mac mini? that thing hasn't been updated in so long.

  69. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    warranty *poof!* gone

  70. Apple LED Cinema Display by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    You miss the PowerBook Duo, don't you. Me, I don't like having a desktop machine that is useless without the laptop present.

    Have you considered using Remote Desktop/VNC over WiFi from a desktop machine to control the laptop? Or starting the laptop in Target Disk mode and using it from the desktop as an external drive? You might even be able to boot the desktop from the laptop's drive.

    Apple also has their LED Cinema Display designed for use with their laptops. You plug all your desktop peripherals into the display and connect the display to the laptop with three connections: mini DisplayPort, USB, and MagSafe power connector. Yes, it can even charge the laptop so you can keep the laptop's charger in the bag. It is also Apple's only external display with a built-in iSight camera.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, it also has built-in microphone and speakers. With an adapter to combine the USB and mini Display Port into an ADC connector, I'd be willing to put that on my old G4 Cube and put its original external speakers on my KVM switch for my other computers.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by sgbett · · Score: 1

      I have found an excellent solution/alternative to the docking issue is running synergy.

      I get to the office, plonk my macbook on my desk next to my keyboard and mouse, and as soon as it connects the WLAN its docked. I end up with a dual head setup, driven by the KB/Mouse plugged into the desktop.

      The added advantage is that the other head can run linux. Very handy for replciating your live boxen for giving you a nicely matched dev environment for your tinkerings.

      You could even knock yourself out and try one of those new fangled 'windows' OSes, as I understand they bothered to write in support for that there 'XP' :)

      --
      Invaders must die
    3. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Or starting the laptop in Target Disk mode and using it from the desktop as an external drive? You might even be able to boot the desktop from the laptop's drive.

      Did you actually just suggest using the MBP as an external hard drive for the majority of the time? The Steve must love you.

      The Cinema Display requires that lovely $100 connector to do things - and then even on the Apple Store site, most user reviews are 1 star or 2, with complaints and "keep away at all cost" all over the place.

    4. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Did you actually just suggest using the MBP as an external hard drive for the majority of the time?

      No, not the majority. I'm just brainstorming some ideas.

      Though I have thought about converting a Blue & White G3 into a large external drive storage device with Firewire interface, drives RAIDed. I've managed to have seven hard drives installed at once (and an upgraded power supply).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      One thing I don't get is given apples descision to use propietry display connectors why didn't they put a couple of USB signal pins in there. It would have had negligable effect on the connector size and would have cut a cable from setups like this.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I tried using Synergy once, it drove me insane with it's nice collection of bugs and pitfalls. I especially hated how if you remote desktop connected to a Synergy managed machine, and then moved the mouse too close to the edge of the screen, you couldn't use the machine until you went back to the physical console. I don't have this problem with Multiplicity, but then again it isn't free. Get what you pay for I guess.

      And what the fuck is a "boxen"?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by sgbett · · Score: 1

      i think you mean wtf *are* boxen...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxen

      (the bottom one)

      Thanks for the tip on multiplicity. I will go take a look.

      --
      Invaders must die
    8. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      why didn't they put a couple of USB signal pins in there.

      "Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc."

      Though apparently this display opted to have a separate USB connection instead.

      But it is also encumbered with copy protection and the use of any adapters will prevent playing any DRM video content and reduce the resolution. Also, Apple is the only one using the Mini DisplayPort and isn't yet offering any adapters to regular DisplayPort connectors or direct to HDMI to preserve the copy protection chain, so Apple is the only vendor for external displays with full DRM compatibility.

      And according to the Mini DisplayPort wiki page:

      On November 27, 2008, Apple announced that it would license the Mini DisplayPort connector with no fee. Apple though may void the license if you "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple" in which case the "Implementation License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate immediately and automatically, without notice from Apple" and you must "immediately cease any further exercise of the license rights".

      So it appears Apple is holding onto the rights for this Mini port and conditioning licensing on staying in Apple's good graces wrt patents, unless those terms have changed since 5 December 2008 when the above revision was made to the wiki.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You might note it's a facetious plural ;) Which is to say doesn't exist. I'll be sure to equate it to the island in Tasmania, Australia, whenever I see it on Slashdot now. Hah!

      Just a note that Multiplicity is unfortunately Windows only. Much as I'd like one, I can't afford to drop a Mac in my pool of machines so that's never been a problem for me - but if you've actually got one you might be put off by the lack of OS X support.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    10. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      You might note it's a facetious plural ;) Which is to say doesn't exist.

      Actually, it should be a facetious second-order plural, as in the progression: box, boxes, boxen. Compare: a sock, a pair of socks, a bunch of soxen.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Hmm, a slight obstacle I fear. I don't run Windows on any of my Tasmanian islands!

      --
      Invaders must die
    12. Re:Apple LED Cinema Display by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      There was an OS X version planned, but it never got off the ground. I guess you could chuck an email or something at the company saying you might be interested if there was OS X support (after all, demand drives development doesn't it?)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  71. The funny thing is, Fiorina was right. by tjstork · · Score: 0

    The whole deal with Fiorina was that the conventional wisdom is that HP was dead as a PC company, the merger with Compaq was stupid, they should have focused on printers, and now look at them.

    The printer business is nice for HP, but they are making loads of dough from enterprise business sales (thank you Compaq), and, they are, I think, the leader in PC sales overall, at least in notebooks.

    --
    This is my sig.
  72. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    ... $1200? Really? Apple does love to overprice commodity parts, but I'm pretty sure for $1200 you could easily buy an entire second laptop with 4GB of RAM (from anybody except Apple or Sony).

    Granted, 4GB RAM modules for laptops are still expensive, but I believe they're well under $400 and Apple gets to save the $100 or so that the pair of 2GB modules would otherwise cost.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  73. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Well, with all Apple computers... Apple has pretty much always been a rip.

    Fixed your typos.

  74. Re:That's no docking station.. It's a breakout box by maxume · · Score: 1

    That's because you over-identify with a corporation.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  75. Re:That's no docking station.. It's a breakout box by ferat · · Score: 1

    More to the point, the quality on the bookendz is terrible. We had lots of them at my previous job, and they'd constantly break/stop relaying video/etc. I don't think we had one last more than about 6 months, and they aren't cheap enough to replace that often.

  76. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, with all Apple computers...it is best to buy them with minimal RAM, and put it in yourself from 3rd party purchase.

    How hard is that going to be with the one-piece body?

  77. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >I seriously doubt many users use a computer 7 days a week, soley on batteries for 8 hours a day!

    Well I haven't had an 8 hour battery life *ever*, but why do you doubt it? The whole point of a battery operated portable computer, for some users, is that you can run it on batteries -- which I do for as long as the battery lasts, as do many others. A good battery is an advantage in many situations, where others scramble for the seats near the plugs in meeting rooms or coffee shops or classrooms, or camp in airports in uncomfortable spots, people with good battery life are free.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  78. Still no Lossless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compressed music is useless in the days of a Terabyte HDD being $100 USD cost.

    I'm not buying compressed music, give me a CD any day until that happens.

    Lossless, where is the lossless "CD QUALITY" music?

  79. No dock needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you tried running your MacBook Pro in clamshell mode? Then it's basically an overglorified Mac Mini that you can plug a keyboard, external monitor, etc into. I had a boss who used his Powerbook clamshell style in the lab and as a laptop at home.

  80. Re:iTunes DRM-free songs international or U.S. onl by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    One thing that's not mentioned anywhere is whether iTunes DRM-free music will be available internationally or only in the U.S.

    Does anybody know?

    Shut up, don't give them any ideas!

    Seriously, what reason have you to suspect that it would be US-only?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  81. Screw the Mac Mini...where's my Netbook! by thewaker · · Score: 1

    I was really hoping that Apple Netbook rumour was true.

  82. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And for some reason why I go to dell and confiugre a similar machine, the XPS m1730, the only thing that is left when i select 17" screen, 4gb, and vista full, I end up with $2798, after a $120 instant kickback.

    Apple has always built to the high end, but it has been years since the prices have been hugely jacked up, at least on the high end machines. People get pissed because they want an Apple logo, but don't want to have to buy the high end machine, or pay for a lower end machine where the markup is more significant.

    Given that Apple is now only about 6 months to a year ahead of the pack, people are less willing to pay for the first user advantage. Does one really need 8 GB in a laptop, does one really need a SSD drive, does one really want to sacrifice a removable battery for space, given that an 8 hour battery might last 5 and a power cord may not be avaialble. If one does, I think this machine provides a good value. If not, then it does not. For me, i am waiting for a good keyboard.

  83. iWork = Google Docs? not in the least. by Michael_gr · · Score: 1

    People, go check iWork.com. This is not Google docs by Apple. This is a fully fledged offline office suite, and judging by the tutorial they have there it's pretty sweet. They seem to be marketing it for personal use, not office work, for some reason, so it may lack features MS Office has. I don't know. Obvious downside is it's currently only for Macs. But check the pricing: single license is $79, family pack (install on 5 computers) is $99, So it's cheaper than MS office (if you don't take into account the $$$ you paid for your mac in the first place). There's also a related online service but that's just a bonus. And they're promising full compatibility with Office docs.

  84. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

    The Macbook Air is for roadwarriors. Unfortunately, it too has an integrated (non-user replaceable) battery. However, the replacement process nevertheless appears to be easier than expected.

  85. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by 0prime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This can pretty much apply to all laptops in general. Most major manufacturers still gouge at a ridiculous level on increasing the RAM pre-installed in a laptop. Apple may be the leader of the pack in overpricing, but unfortunately, all of them do it to some extent.

    --
    I am not a *blank*, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
  86. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700+ system come on other laptops have SLI at that price.

    Just for the record, the graphics drivers in Mac OS X don't support SLI, CrossFireX, Hybrid x, etc.

    (Of course, Apple could code it in. But they'd probably want to build such hardware into more than one model of one Mac before that happens.)

  87. 1000 recharges only drops it to 80% by Macka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of the news reports are not getting the complete picture. Apple have posted a dedicated battery page that talks about it in more detail. Here's the paragraph that expands on the 1000 charge info:

    The lifespan of a battery is measured in recharges. One recharge is a complete charge and discharge of a batteryâ(TM)s energy. A recharge doesnâ(TM)t necessarily occur every time you plug in your notebook; many partial charges can add up to a single full recharge. The typical battery delivers about 200 to 300 recharges before its capacity declines to approximately 80 percent. At that point the battery still works, but its performance is diminished. Thanks to the breakthroughs of advanced chemistry and Adaptive Charging, the battery in the 17-inch MacBook Pro can go through up to 1000 recharges before it reaches 80 percent of its original capacity -- more than three times the lifespan of typical notebook batteries

    So it's not 1000 recharges and then throw it away!

    1. Re:1000 recharges only drops it to 80% by capnkr · · Score: 1

      If their battery technology is three times better than 'industry standard', why don't they go into the battery business? They could make a *mint*.

      Something doesn't seem right. Think about it...

      If they could make batteries *that* much better, the world would be their oyster. Laptops, portable electronics, cars, wind-generated power storage systems, etc... The end uses are limitless, and would make them a TON more money than what they will realize from laptop sales.

      I think that instead, their marketing claims might be "three times better", and that's about it... ;)

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  88. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "warranty *poof!* gone"

    \ Since when has installing RAM on your own computer invalidated a warranty???

    Never heard of that one....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  89. New Battery Not All That Innovative by dmyurych · · Score: 1

    I worked in retail selling batteries for a spell so I took a look at the Apple website at what they had to say about the new battery for the MacBook Pro. I would say Apple doesn't seem to be doing anything new other than making it bigger (in part by eliminating the ability to easily remove it).

    The entire notebook industry has been moving to Lithium Polymer for the last several years. Li-Poly is still classified as Lithium Ion technology but with advancements over the previous generation of Li-Ion. One of these advancements is the shape of the cells from the cylindrical form to pretty much any form desirable. So this is hardly innovative unless your comparing it to batteries from five year old notebooks.

    Adaptive charging also doesn't seem to be new. Li-Ion batteries have always required special circuitry in the chargers to ensure a safe charge as well as prolong the life of the battery (you're asking for trouble if you try and charge a Li-Ion with a straight trickle charge with no feedback from the battery). Maybe Apple's new adaptive charging has made significant advances over it's competitors, but they certainly didn't invent it like they seem to imply.

    There are only a handful of large manufacturers of Li-Ion cells in the world (all in the far east I believe). Apple may be assembling these cells into their own batteries but I'm sure there is nothing special about the cells that any of the other notebook manufacturers couldn't incorporate into their own Notebooks as well. Yet from the Apple's website you'd think they had their own chemists and engineers developing batteries from scratch.

    So it seems that they crammed a bigger battery into the new MacBook Pro and therefore it has a longer life over a single charge. Which not being able to easily remove does not bother me as long as it is still serviceable (that is replace the cells like you would RAM or the hard-drive by opening up the case) five years from now when it might make a useful second-hand computer. It doesn't sound like they've come up with anything special that would prolong the overall life of the battery either. Or are they exaggerating this claim as well. Does anyone know the typical recharge cycle ratings on any recent and up-to-date Li-Poly notebook batteries?

    Since this is something I know a little about, it seems to me to be another example of how companies get away with deceiving people about how something is supposedly so innovative and better than everyone else's.

    By the way I have a two year old MacBook running OSX and Ubuntu so I'm not an Apple hater by a long shot.

  90. iwork.com ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure about iwork.com ? All I see is an ad for the next version of the software suite.

  91. Can't wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... until this type of battery technology makes it to the 15" MBP or the 13" MB... IMHO 17" is less than portable...

    I'd definately like to swap my current MBP 15" for a 13" with similar performance and longer lasting battery life - for all those monkey class flights across the atlantic... ;)

  92. Call me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
    Call me when they sell the songs without DRM and in some format that is at least as good as CD quality, like AAC lossless.

    As I posted earlier...when they do that, I'll finally be interested in purchasing music online.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Call me... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Serious question: is there really any advantage to all the "lossless" formats that have popped up, versus just taking an uncompressed AIFF or WAV file (44.1kHz PCM bitstream dumped into a minimal container) and compressing it with something like Zip/GZip/BZip2 inside a Zip or TAR container?

      There's been quite the proliferation of lossless formats (FLAC, Monkey's Audio, Apple Lossless, etc.), all incompatible and basically none seemingly getting a critical mass of users, outside of particular niche markets. But it seems like WAV+BZIP or something like it would be pretty trivial to implement and non-proprietary, so you'd be able to play it just about anywhere. Plus, just about anyone would be able to create them, so the chicken/egg problem would be solved, and you wouldn't have to depend on little self-bootstrapping communities of users.

      You wouldn't have to give up metadata, or decompress in order to read it; you can smack whatever you want onto (the front of, I think? maybe it's the back of) a Zip container file and it will just be ignored.

      It seems hard to imagine that the gains from using a special-purpose algorithm that's tuned for audio data is really significant enough to outweigh the interoperability disadvantages of creating yet another audio file format, versus just using a well-known and freely-available general-purpose file compression library.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Call me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There's been quite the proliferation of lossless formats (FLAC, Monkey's Audio, Apple Lossless, etc.), all incompatible and basically none seemingly getting a critical mass of users, outside of particular niche markets."

      I think the reason the lossless formats haven't picked up that much with the majority of people is....the recent generations, really don't have any idea what GOOD sound reporduction is all about or what it can sound like. To a generation that really knows nothing but mp3's played on a portable player with cheap earbuds...moving up to $50 earphones sounds like a world of difference and the best things can get.

      Somewhere after my generation, for some reason....kids, I guess stopped buying good home stereos...or somehow weren't exposed to what good sound could be. I dunno the exact reason. I mean, as a broke pre-teen, teen (I got a job when I was 16 to buy toys) and college guy...I couldn't afford to buy high end stuff all together either. But, I started buying one piece at a time...

      Before I was old enough to get a job at 16...I mowed lawns and babysat for the neighbors, I used that money to buy skateboards and audio. I saved and saved..and eventually bought a Marantz receiver...pretty good stuff in its day...and played it over crappy speakers till I could save and buy some big Fisher ones I found on clearance (ok, my parents kicked in a little towards them for early B-Day present)..from there I saved for a good turntable...tape deck..etc. Over the past decades...I've saved and upgraded here and there. As I posted earlier, when I was 12 and heard my first McIntosh amp on a pair of Klipshorn speakers, I knew what kind of audio I wanted someday.

      So, why not today? I dunno. Perhaps the reasons I've given...perhaps that music in recent years has been produced with such horrible levels of compression, that no one knows what dynamic range can sound like? Maybe it is the popularity of some strains of 'music' that apparently only appeal to people who like nothing but bass....I swear I wonder at some cars that go by, shaking the foundation of the house..if they have a tweeter or midrange speaker in the car at all. YOu certainly can't hear anything but thump, thump, thump...

      It is insteresting, when people come over and hear my stereo...young or old...they always seem to commment on WOW...I've never heard anything like that before...etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Call me... by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      I think the change, in part, is due to the fact that with CD and advances in amplifier and speaker technology the default fidelity setting is "high enough" for most people. I still cringe when I actually listen to a set of Bose or B&W speakers in a quiet setting. So ... when you have all that road noise in your car AM radio is good enough if the station is close. When you want to walk around and listen to music AND don't have any cash, the ear buds are good enough. When your goal is to impress your peers, rumbling and shaking and blinking lights is good enough. And ... drum roll ... when you are at home the default CD player is good enough.

    4. Re:Call me... by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      Because with WAV+BZIP you have to decompress and store the entire WAV file somewhere before beginning playback.

      --
      i forget
    5. Re:Call me... by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      First, compression. They use algorithms that are MUCH better suited to PCM audio data than generic data algorithms. Where Zip would give 15% compression, WavPack would give 45% or something on that scale.

      Second, seeking. How would you seek two minutes into the song in a "WAV+BZIP" without uncompressing it all up to that point and throwing away what you don't need? How about 4 hours into an audio book? FLAC/WavPack/APE/etc can just seek to the right position in the file and start decoding at the right block.

      Third: Progression. Why should we stick to something inferior or non-optimal?

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    6. Re:Call me... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1

      Because with WAV+BZIP you have to decompress and store the entire WAV file somewhere before beginning playback.

      Why decompress the entire file? It can be streamed a block at a time. In the worst case scenario (highest compression), a player would need a 4 MB buffer to decompress one bzipped block of data using the default decompression algorithm (i.e. not -s). The decompression would net 878 KB or 5 seconds of CD quality sound. By the time the player finishes playing that, it'd be able to decompress the next block.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  93. No more Apple kool-aid for me .. by torpor · · Score: 1

    .. this will be my *last* MacBook.

    I wish someone else from the 90's would make laptops as cool as Apple though ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  94. Still no Linux version by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the music itself is now DRM-free, it is still inaccessible to non Windows/Mac users. I realize that we Linux-only households are few and far between, but as a cross-platform version of iTunes already exists, why not make a version for Linux too?

    While they're at it, could they just move the store entirely to the web, and let me access it with a normal browser since I don't need to 'activate' the downloaded music at all anymore?

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    1. Re:Still no Linux version by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I realize that we Linux-only households are few and far between, but as a cross-platform version of iTunes already exists, why not make a version for Linux too?

      Because you are few and far between. And have no money. Or always act like you don't. And you smell. And dress funny. And people laugh at you and put dirt in your hair.

      Hey, lighten up! I'm teasing!

      Mostly.

    2. Re:Still no Linux version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go and write it yourself. Isn't that what Linux is all about?

    3. Re:Still no Linux version by yabos · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the neck beards.

    4. Re:Still no Linux version by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Its been done, repeatedly.

      Its also illegal in the United States because of the hacking required of the Copyright-related protocols.

      If Apple made the iTunes store API open, then we could do it easily. And would.

      Stop the FUD.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  95. Installing your own RAM doesn't void the warranty. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Installing your own RAM doesn't void the warranty. (Unless you break your computer while doing it, in which case it does.)

  96. Labels forcing the upgrade "fee" by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    If you recall, when Harmonix allowed users to import songs from Rock Band 1 to Rock Band 2, they charged $5 to compensate the labels for "expanded use".

    While it's not mentioned, somehow I think it's more their role in this deal than Apple's. The other thing they want (and get) from this, is a way to measure to how many customers who previously bought DRMed music find this important (enough to pay $.30 for anyway)

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  97. Try actually using a docking station by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ok, so you want to force everyone to have yet another port on their laptop that adds to the weight and style just so that they can doc their laptop in one or 2 seconds less.

    A real dock will do more than attach rapidly. Mine has an additional port for a removable drive, maintains a live ethernet connection when the laptop is missing/asleep, gives me a physical lock to keep the machine from growing legs, and even has a half size PCI slot. It also lets me store my laptop quickly and easily out of the way when at my desk so I don't have a rats nest of cables on my desk - not critical but very nice. A real dock is more than just a port replicator. It can actually add function to your machine.

    And don't underestimate the benefit of hot plugging a laptop if you are going to meetings all the time and need your machine. I've had days where it has saved me 5-15 minutes of plugging cables which is really nice if you are very busy. I can think of lots of other things I'd rather do than plug in a bunch of cables each time I come to my desk.

    You claim that the monitor and USB ports are going to get messed up over time but the docs port will likely suffer the same fate.

    Having used docking stations heavily on IBM/Lenovo laptops for most of the last decade I can say confidently you are incorrect on that assumption. The dock connectors are quite reliable most of the time. USB and ethernet ports are designed to be removed a lot so they usually aren't the problem though it is annoying to constantly be attaching them. The problems are more with HD-15 (VGA) connectors and some of the others that aren't really designed for daily installation and regular connection/disconnection. No bent pins, no loose friction fit connectors, and a more organized desktop to boot. (no pun intended)

    1. Re:Try actually using a docking station by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The Mac's mini DV connector looks pretty solid in that department. It is still a pain having to pay £15 for an adapter so you can plug a normal monitor into it.

  98. For the same reason to kill the floppy disc. by Neurotic+Nomad · · Score: 1

    To drag those people into the next decade.

  99. Wide Gamut? by Cr4wford · · Score: 1

    On the Apple website it says the new 17" MBP has a wider color gamut...does anybody know anything more about this? Is it sRGB, or is it "Wide-Gamut" and closer to aRGB?

    I'm interested because I have a wide gamut monitor (the Planar PX2611) and colors in non-color-aware applications (like the OS and most apps) look really over-saturated. In color-aware applications like Photoshop and Firefox, things look fine--so it's obviously a problem that could be solved by software.

    If they're really wide-gamut, do these new MBPs have the same problem? Or has it been fixed?

    --
    Freelance Web Designer - Portfolio
    1. Re:Wide Gamut? by postmortem · · Score: 1

      Wide gamut on TN type flat panels is useless. About 99% notebooks use them. They have 262K colors, poor viewing angles, dithering. Unless it is an PVA or IPS panel with true 8-bit colors and wide viewing angles.

    2. Re:Wide Gamut? by Cr4wford · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that wide gamut is impossible in a TN panel? I know that TN panels are crap, but I thought that the gamut was independent of the panel type, and dependent instead on the backlighting?

      There must be grounds for the claim of increased gamut. Might it be a different panel type? Do you think it's still sRGB or wide gamut/aRGB?

      --
      Freelance Web Designer - Portfolio
    3. Re:Wide Gamut? by postmortem · · Score: 1

      It is possible, and Samsung has being doing it for its desktop panels. I am saying having wide gamut on TN beats the purpose - simply because large part of colors are emulated, so it becomes only marketing gimmick.

      Now, Anand (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3246&p=8) claims that MacBook Pro actually has an IPS panel.
      Since Andand is usually correct, so it is to expect that newest Macbook Pro has IPS panel as well.

    4. Re:Wide Gamut? by Cr4wford · · Score: 1

      Well, my interest is because I'm hoping that they update Color Sync to accommodate wide-gamut displays. I have a wide gamut display (the Planar PX2611) and the OSX UI / non-color-aware apps look horribly over-saturated.

      If the new MBP is indeed wide-gamut, then perhaps snow leopard will include an update to ColorSync with a fix for WG displays. Man, that would make me happy!

      As for IPS panels in the MBP--I have a previous generation (early 2008) 15" MBP and I'm pretty sure it's not IPS. The viewing angles aren't as great as my Planar and the colors don't look quite as good in color-managed applications (FF, Photoshop).

      --
      Freelance Web Designer - Portfolio
  100. Lawsuit Pending by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    IMNAL but look at the screenshot of iPhoto, the photoview where you can label photos with a white background is JUST like a polaroid photograph, and that company has just been taken into administration. I hope their receivers do not make the connection with the photo labels looking like polaroids, because they might be sniffing easy money here. Then again if they start sniffing too early Apple can just change the form factor of those images to save a lawsuit.

  101. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you use it every day, including saturdays and sundays, FOR 8 HOURS A DAY, then in 2.7 years, the battery will be down to an 80% charge or 6.4 hours.

    Be careful you prolly won't get credit unless you show your work..

  102. MagSafe power by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Heck, this is why Apple swapped to the magnetic power plug! Why are the rest of the connections less important?

    The other connections tend not to be strewn across the floor as a trip hazard. It's intended as a safety mechanism, not a wear-and-tear solution.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  103. Re:Darn... no iPhone update by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    I'd like one with a keyboard, but knowing Steve Job's attitude to the number of buttons on his products, that isn't going to happen.

  104. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  105. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

    I would hardly consider it a business laptop, and a road warrior's laptop in particular:

    1. No matte screen option, only glossy
    2. No built-in Ethernet, only clumsy optional USB-to-Ethernet adapter
    3. One USB port (immediately taken by (2), necessitating carrying a USB hub)
    4. 2GB RAM limit
    5. 2.5 hr real-world battery life, without ability to replace in the field

    It may be a cool fashion-statement device, but business-oriented travel laptop it is not.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  106. They're making laptops so you can't upgrade it by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    This is an outrage. There is no way I'll take their "innovation". I'll stick with my old trusty PC laptop which is totally open so I can upgrade the memory, processor, video card, sound card, network card...you make it, PC laptops are totally open.

    In fact I'm adding in 3 hard-drives, of my choice, and a new RAID card, of my choice.

    Leave it to Apple to lock down laptops and tie people into using hardware chosen by The Man!

  107. why don't they all play AAC? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    >...In fact, outside Apple, most digital music players will not play AAC. All will play MP3 however

    which begs the question, why don't they all play AAC? They all seem to play MP3 and WMA. Is there a royalty involved in adding AAC support? Likewise, is there a royalty for WMA?

    It seems that, now that iTunes is going non-DRM AAC, it'd make sense for all players to support AAC before they'd support WMA.

    On a similar note, it was a pain finding the codecs to get non-DRM AAC to play on my Linux box too - at least it was a pain to figure out which non-free libraries I needed to use along with with xine (and then later gstreamer) as needed by the various Linux distros I've used. Again, most of the difficulty comes because the distros are afraid to provide these (or even point you to them) for fear of patent suits.

    I assume these are just aspects of the larger software patent/royalty situation. So when are these problems going to start going away now that software seems to be getting a little less patentable?

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:why don't they all play AAC? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yes, theres a royalty for MP3, WMA, and AAC. It's a cost-benefit analysis, I assume, as to why all three aren't supported.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  108. DRM and pre-existing purchases by forrie · · Score: 1

    This is great news (and about time).

    I'm curious how this might affect pre-existing purchases that are DRM'd. Presumably, they would remain DRM'd due to the license and price upon which they were purchased. Optionally, Apple might add an additional "fee" to un-DRM your existing iTunes collection.

  109. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one I know has ever bought ram from Apple...

    it's one of those goes without saying things. d'oh.

  110. Engadget wasn't the best site to get this from ... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I followed the keynote from one of the Mac magazine's own web sites, vs. Engadget.

    The problem with Engadget's blogging is, they just ignored parts they were personally uninterested in (software related items).

    I don't think they even covered most of the talk about the new iWork '09 suite!

    Actually, the new features they're putting in iLife '09 and iWork '09 I thought were the best parts of this keynote. (We already all knew a 17" Macbook Pro was coming, since they updated the 15" and were still selling the old model of the 17", right? Big deal... Only really "interesting" news was the non-replaceable but improved battery, and for some, the fact you can again order it with a matte screen, for $50 extra.)

    iWork '09, among other things, finally becomes a serious contender for an MS Office alternative, because it fully supports "OLE" type capabilities. I can finally make a chart in "Numbers" and link it to a Pages doc or Keynote presentation, and have the chart change dynamically when I update figures in the spreadsheet. Without this functionality, it really was kind of "second class" as Office suites go.....

  111. Apple fought tired for years. Pure Spin by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Yeah, when they say the "majority" of stuff won't be $1.29 I can't help but think they mean 51% of catalog- the total bottom rung crap. Apple fought tiered pricing for years, this is simply their way of spinning it after making a concession they didn't want to make. I will certainly never buy a song at $1.29 despite the best efforts of Apple, the industry simply won't stop shooting themselves in the foot.

    1. Re:Apple fought tired for years. Pure Spin by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Oh quit f...ing whining! I actually thought you were insightful up to the

      I will certainly never buy a song at $1.29

      comment.

      What else can you get that will last you forever for $1.29?

      If you are so dirt poor that you don't have room for a $1.29 investment, then you most likely live on the street and cannot get food every day... My guess is that you aren't in the target audience anyway.

    2. Re:Apple fought tired for years. Pure Spin by cyborch · · Score: 1

      I will certainly never buy a song at $1.29

      Penny Arcade said it better than I ever could: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/8/

  112. Why pay again for something you own? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, since you already payed for the recording, and could burn and rip it into DRM free, why do you not consider P2P downloading it. You are morally free to since you payed for it. I just can't stomach giving more money to these greedy labels

  113. DRM spells You're screwed by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    People were told numerous times by industry experts when DRM'd music was available that they would have to re-buy their music once the DRM became obsolete. Nobody listened though, making the iPod the most popular portable music device ever.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  114. DisplayPort is the dock. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You probably were not aware of this, but USB can be funneled through the DisplayPort. You attach one cable, and the monitor/mouse/keyboard/etxernal storage are connected.

    What more do you want?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:DisplayPort is the dock. by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      You probably were not aware of this, but USB can be funneled through the DisplayPort. You attach one cable, and the monitor/mouse/keyboard/etxernal storage are connected.

      What more do you want?

      Well let's see, how about FireWire since USB2 performance sucks shit, oh, and I'd like a wired network connection because switched gigabit with jumbo frames kicks the shit out of any wireless out there when you're moving large files around.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    2. Re:DisplayPort is the dock. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Well let's see, how about FireWire since USB2 performance sucks shit, oh, and I'd like a wired network connection because switched gigabit

      Granted those are two very good reasons, but I don't know they are all that common - especially not both of them. I regularly connect an eSata expresscard to my laptop for external storage, but then I have no need of gigabit ethernet to connect to shared drives.

      Most people who use docks though (business users) would not really need either one not having very large files or not having a really monstrous data set. The only time I've used the ethernet port on the laptop in the past few years was doing the full initial backup dump, modern wireless is more than fast enough even for incremental backups of a few GB.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  115. Amazon MP3 Store by nlawalker · · Score: 1

    I still see no reason to move from the Amazon MP3 store. Is there anything that makes iTMS superior?

    1. Re:Amazon MP3 Store by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Can the Amazon store let you convert your song into a wav file, open it up in the windows wav editor, jump to a position, delete everything before it (such as those stupid "trash talk moments" commonly found in early 90's songs), then convert the wav file to a 192 kbps mp3?

      Other than that, nothing really different, which is why they did this.

    2. Re:Amazon MP3 Store by Roadstar · · Score: 1

      I still see no reason to move from the Amazon MP3 store. Is there anything that makes iTMS superior?

      Well, as a Finn the fact that I can actually buy stuff from iTunes makes it far superior to the US-only Amazon store.

    3. Re:Amazon MP3 Store by BBird · · Score: 1

      the store sells the file. DRM fee files can be edited anywhere
      you want, converted and truncated. don't need to convert to wav at all.
      I use vlc and audacity.

    4. Re:Amazon MP3 Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still see no reason to move from the Amazon MP3 store. Is there anything that makes iTMS superior?

      Yes, as a matter of fact, there is.

      256kbps ***AAC*** encoding. Far superior sonically than MP3 at a given bitrate.

      I'm posting this as AC, because I hate the way /.'s commenting system LOSES YOUR PLACE in the thread-tree when you login, and I don't want to paw down through the messages to get back to where I already was (but I digress...).

  116. But it's $0.30/song to remove DRM! by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > DRM-free music is nice though.

    While it's nice that new music will be DRM-free, the part that bothers me is that it'll cost you $0.30 per song to remove the restrictions on music you've already purchased.

    It's too bad they had to gouge their customers again. I mean, how can they get away with that when there are other websites out there where you can upgrade your music collection for free?

  117. Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV cam by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos...

    No, it means you use almost any newer camcorder which all use USB to attach to the computer. That's why Apple dropped it from the lineup, because it was not needed for even that remaining consumer reason.

    They left it in the upper end models because it works better for storage, and also more advanced camcorders may continue to make use of Firewire.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  118. Apple's battery estimates are generally good by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    8 hours (which surely means 6 real world hours)

    With past Apple products I've generally gotten within 10% (on either side) of the estimates they give. They are generally not best-case scenarios.

    I planned to get a new laptop this year, but I wasn't going to get the 17" because I've found them too big. With the integrated battery leading to lighter weight (6.6 pounds) and a smaller size, along with enough of a battery life I could use it almost anywhere without needing a charge during the day... I'm seriously thinking the 17" might be OK even for occasional air travel.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  119. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I don't know how many slots the 17 has but they have a habit of filling up all the slots, so if there are 4 slots than expect 1GB in each slot.

  120. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I found this on a shop:

    http://www.jr.com/crucial/pe/CRT_8G51264BCK/

    Crucial CT2KIT51264BC1067 8GB PC3-8500 DDR3 Notebook Memory Kit: $1,139.99

    So, those 4 GB sticks are expensive at this moment.

  121. OT: But vs. and in summary by noidentity · · Score: 1

    As rumored, the battery is not removable, but it's claimed to provide 8 hours of battery life (7 hours with the discrete graphics)

    Unless you think that an unremovable battery implies that its charge must not last very long, the word "but" is inappropriate.

  122. Matte is dim by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Reflective sucks, plain and simple

    I disagree.

    I do a lot of photography, so back when I was weighing my purchase choice for a new Macbook Pro a few years ago I was trying to decide between glossy and matte - I chose matte.

    After a few days of real use, I found that while matte screens to tone down reflections, they do not eliminate them. And they very fact they are matte mans that the display is going to be dimmer than a non-matte display.

    So I returned it and got a glossy screen. I've been much happier with it, even using it outdoors sometimes and always near windows and other random light sources. Even the slightest shift of the screen can eliminate some reflections and the extra brightness of the display cuts through the rest - even truer of the new LED screens which are much brighter.

    If matte screens really eliminated reflections I'd agree with you, but they do not.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Matte is dim by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you post-process on your laptop?

      You did notice, btw, that I was talking about business road warriors, didn't you?

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    2. Re:Matte is dim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. Why don't you stop referring to yourself as a 'road warrior'? Are you in management?

    3. Re:Matte is dim by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you post-process on your laptop?

      Sometimes you have to, on the road. I've sent stuff in from other countries that could not wait until I got home to edit or review.

      Mostly though it's just initial passes to see how things are going, for that a calibrated laptop monitor is Good Enough. I have to say, the thought of this monitor having a wider gamut is really appealing, I want to know more exactly what they mean by that.

      You did notice, btw, that I was talking about business road warriors, didn't you?

      True, but if it can work for a photographer then I would think someone doing word processing or spreadsheet work could easily live with it.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Matte is dim by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly a "road warrior". But I do all my work on my laptop, in a number of different environments.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Matte is dim by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      You've proven your case, then. You are better off with the glossy screen. But you see, I am not asking that Apple switch from glossy to matte. I am simply asking for a choice, even if it costs a little extra.

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  123. There is additional benefit by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I have just had a look, and it will cost 20 pence to upgrade each song to DRM free and better quality of the Plus store. Good one Apple!

    While annoying, there's some benefit - the DRM free tracks are stored at a higher quality level, so you get an improved version along with stripping the DRM.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  124. How do they expect to sell this to Joe Sixpack? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Look at all that unused space next to the keyboard! Where are my Intel inside stickers? And the screenshots, how come they're not photos of Formula One racecars, or Lamborghinis or Ferraris banking at Nürburgring?

    What it needs on that wrist wrest are CUPHOLDERS. A little round indentation to hold either your Bawls or coffee mug or 2 of your (what else?) sixpack!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:How do they expect to sell this to Joe Sixpack? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      how come they're not photos of Formula One racecars, or Lamborghinis or Ferraris banking at Nürburgring?

      I think Joe Sixpack is far more interested in NASCAR.

  125. That comes later by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The mac mini has been a good seller, so the thinking is it was too minor an update for now.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  126. Murphy and bent pins by sjbe · · Score: 0

    How in the world could one "screw up" plugging in power, monitor and USB?

    Never underestimate morons. I agree you have to wonder about the intellect of the folks who cause these mini-catastrophes. I've seen countless bent pins on HD15 cables, USB connectors that get bent so they can't maintain a friction fit, and of course phone cables plugged into ethernet ports. I even saw one guy plug a modem into itself by routing the phone cable from the line jack to the phone jack - wasn't plugged into the wall at all!

    Pretty much if it can be plugged in the wrong place, bent, mangled or otherwise screwed up it *will* happen. You're right that it is a head scratcher sometimes and users being morons is not in my opinion a useful argument against a laptop dock. Cost, use of valuable space in a laptop and the fact that docks really are more of a luxury than a necessity are FAR better arguments against them. Personally I like not having to plug in my mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers, ethernet, external hard drive + whatever else each time I come to my desk. Also saves me from transporting some cables. Worth the extra bucks and trade-offs to me but your mileage may vary and I respect that.

    If you've seen some of the docks on the market, they are much more laborious to connect, and much easier to screw up with.

    Certainly possible to design a crappy dock and I've seen a few. But I've used docks for much of the last 10 years when available and they work well. The ones from IBM/Lenovo are generally of pretty good quality.

  127. Linux iTunes by quenda · · Score: 1
    Worse than that: Apple _actively_ works to stop you using an iPod with Linux. Older models have been reverse-engineered but the iPod-Touch and iPhone have DRM to stop you touching the music library without iTunes.

    This is the sort of evil monopolistic behaviour that caused the FSF to boycott Apple. Time to revive it? If only there was still some sort of government agency to combat such abuse ...

    1. Re:Linux iTunes by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      not really. iPhone and iPod touch have a different system implemented to allow signed code to run on the device, and a special communications protocol that is different from the iPods, which were just smarter hard drives anyway. The iPhone/iTouch run their own OS, and as such have their own transfer protocol.

      It's not to be monopolistic, especially considering Apple has even been slightly encouraging of people to jailbreak their devices. They don't want you unlocking iPhones, but that is a different matter unrelated to using iTunes or not. They don't care if you use linux, only that they won't support it

  128. Bug Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $2,799, 2.66 GHz and 4 GB of RAM, 320GB HD.

    After extensive testing, it appears that being the alternative to Microsoft allows you to charge ridiculous prices and still somehow make customers feel good about getting them. Is this a bug or by design?

  129. serial console by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall people complaining a lot louder when they lost their floppy drives, LPT ports, RS232, ADB/PS2, etc. Nobody's stopping you from keeping your old laptop, getting one on ebay etc.

    As someone in IT who still has to deal with consoles I find RS-232 ports handy. For better or worse I have to deal with USB-serial adapters now.

  130. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously doubt many users use a computer 7 days a week, soley on batteries for 8 hours a day!

    Well, I've always used my notebooks 99% of the time plugged in to the wall. The first thing I do when I take it out of the bag is to look for an outlet. However, my observation of other people's usage is that everyone else uses it on batteries most of the time. It is funny to see the desperate faces looking for an outlet ( which I am now occupying and won't budge) when their battery drains out. It doesn't matter how long it lasts, it seems they will always drain it out first before recharging. I think that this is not merely an atavistic attitude from the days when batteries would last longer if you followed that procedure ( I doubt they know that) but is simply the way people act.

  131. Re:That's no docking station.. It's a breakout box by multiplexo · · Score: 1

    What a hideous kludge!

    I can't believe any Apple user would buy and use that thing in daylight without wearing a mask and/or holding their nose..

    That's probably because you're borderline retarded as a result of being fed a diet of trans-fats, high-fructose corn syrup and lead paint chips as a child, which makes you a perfect Apple Fanboi. I'll bet you're one of the stupid bastards who actually believes Steve Jobs when he says that you don't need more than one button on a mouse or that USB2 and FireWire are equivalent in performance. I've used the BookEndz docks and they work quite well. Perhaps the BookEndz dock offends your aesthetic sensibilities but some us are actually doing work on our MacBooks and actually use those ports, we're not just plugging our new MacBooks into our shiny new Apple monitor with Apple's shiny new mini-display port connector and then masturbating ourselves into a self-congratulatory frenzy over how incredibly 1337 we are.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  132. DisplayPort by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    One thing I don't get is given apples descision to use propietry display connectors why didn't they put a couple of USB signal pins in there.

    DisplayPort is a digital display interface standard (approved May 2006, current version 1.1a approved on January 11, 2008) put forth by the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA). It defines a new license-free, royalty-free, digital audio/video interconnect, intended to be used primarily between a computer and its display monitor, or a computer and a home-theater system.

    So it's not proprietary.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:DisplayPort by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Displayport isn't propietry but afaict mini displayport (displayport signaling but with a different connector) is.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:DisplayPort by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Seems I was wrong (or possiblly only semi-wrong), the mini-displayport connector is not in the current displayport spec but apparently will be in the next version.

      I could not find any clear info on if it was introduced by apple and then submitted to whoever is standising displayport or if it originated elsewhere.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  133. no midrange expandable Macs by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like you I and others have pointed out that Apple is missing a market segment that wants a midrange Mac that's expandable and upgradeable. I'd love to be able to get a mid tower with 3 or 4 expansion slots and well as more hdd space for around US$1000. As it is though I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro when I need a more robust desktop, er under desk, PC I'll upgrade my old Linux tower.

    Falcon

  134. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by multiplexo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos...

    No, it means you use almost any newer camcorder which all use USB to attach to the computer. That's why Apple dropped it from the lineup, because it was not needed for even that remaining consumer reason.

    They left it in the upper end models because it works better for storage, and also more advanced camcorders may continue to make use of Firewire.

    God that was a fucking stupid decision. Rather than make the MacBook a few millimeters longer they dropped one of the most useful ports on the system. Ever used FireWire target disk mode? It's absolutely incredible. Oh, and anyone who thinks that USB2 is equal in performance to FireWire 400 anywhere other than a spec sheet is a fucking retard.

    Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not an engineer and his whole "make things shiny, then make them functional" mindset has permeated through the Apple ranks. I like Macs, I own two and am considering a third, but I really wish that Steve, the man who gave us the one button mouse, the incredibly fucking unusable mouse that came with the original iMac, the original Mac keyboard without cursor keys and who spent $100k having the logo for NeXT designed before he had any hardware or software for the company, would pull his head out of his ass about the whole "form following function" thing.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  135. Where's the numeric keypad? by Benfea · · Score: 1

    It's a crime that they made a laptop that large, but didn't include a numeric keypad.

  136. bummed about the battery by ecloud · · Score: 1

    Yesterday (and before) the rumor was that it would be a ZPower silver-zinc battery which would last 5 years or so. But this is the same old Lithium Polymer technology, which starts degrading right away and will need to be replaced in 3 years (or much less if you charge it too often). It's a bummer to know right up-front that you are going to have this pain in the butt to look forward to so soon. Long life between charges is not enough: it needs to have a long total lifetime before they should be making it non-removeable. The computer will definitely not be obsolete by the time the battery wears out, so you will have to replace it at least once. And the "recycling" for LiPoly is pathetic (they just recover the cobalt and burn all the lithium, which is quite a waste of such a rare metal).

    And still no tablet! (iPhone doesn't count, I mean a real tablet Mac) And no upgraded Mini!

  137. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    If size is the biggest concern, why not get a MacBook? Do you really need the extra features of the Pro?

  138. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And $1200 to go from 4gb to 8gb?

    8GB of DDR3 1066MHz notebook RAM is $1100-$1200 from anyone right now. Apple's price is really decent compared to what mfgr's usually charge for RAM upgrades.

  139. I wub apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and their terrorista income policy of removing anything even remotely user serviceable from their products, thereby forcing them to go waste extraneous dollars at their overpriced (tech chimps are a ha'penny a dozen) retail stores and/or "service" centers...

    Go Appleistas! (The unwashed masses will, to an extent, buy your crap, but the rest of us will flip you the bird for such consumer unfriendly practices!)

  140. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4GB DDR3 is expensive. OWC sells 4GB modules for $700. Making it $1400 for 8GB.

  141. MacBook/MacBok Pro dock by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    How about a DOCK so that people who don't want to work all the time hunched over a laptop screen but DO want the convenience and reliability of a Mac laptop can work without having to place their laptop on a stack of paper reams to get it to eye level?

    To just raise a MacBook Apple sells stands. The Griffin Elevator Notebook Stand has room underneath for a keyboard and mouse. For something more, a dock with ports, there's Bookendz.

    I too wish Apple would make a dock but other companies offer them.

    Falcon

  142. desktop replacement by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    First, the article is discussing their new 17" 1920x1200 notebook. There's no use having a desktop replacement notebook with a screen that size if you're not "comfortable" using it.

    ...

    I have a 24" iMac for work, and a 15" MBP for travel.

    I'm typing this on my 17" MBP, and I take it with me. If Apple offered a 21" MBP I'd probably have gotten it instead. However I want a larger monitor, I'm looking for one at least 24". Having a large screen monitor along with the smaller one with the MBP is great. As a photographer I can have the photo I'm working on displayed on the large monitor while all my tools and pallets are on the laptop monitor. If I want or need I could have email and/or chat client open on the smaller monitor.

    Docks are not all they're made out to be either...

    My first laptop was from Gateway and I got a dock with it at the same tyme. Within seconds I could undock it and slip it into my backpack, no discounting a bunch of cables. I'd love to have one for my MBP but I'm not about to fork over another $300 for one, not now.

    Falcon

  143. Copyright 101. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Ahh, but here's your mistake. You're applying Supply and Demand rules to a commodity that has effectively infinite supply. Prices go up with demand as a result of scarcity. The market is essentially an auction in that respect. In the download world, the cost isn't the commodity being sold, but rather the storefront itself. iTMS costs the same to run whether it's selling a million songs, or only a single song.

    You're failing to grasp the whole point of copyright. There is an infinite supply of the finished product, but the resources needed to produce it are pretty scarce. Copyright artificially limits the supply of the finished product to match the scarcity of the resources required to produce it. The point is to make the market for the finished products decide how much resource should be invested in their production.

    You can keep pointing out that the finished product has effectively unlimited supply till you're blue on the face; that was known from day one, when copyright was invented to benefit the (paper) publishing industry. Copyright is a law, i.e., a conventional rule, not an intrinsic economic limit. The question you really need to address is how will resources be allocated to the production of musical recordings, and how any scheme you propose compares to copyright.

  144. docking a MBP by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    There's absolutely NOTHING Apple currently provides that comes even close the the ease of use of Dell's docking stations.

    I love my MBP but a lack of a docking station is one thing I don't like. I used to have a Gateway laptop and a docking station for it, and I loved how I could undock the laptop and slide it in my bag without having to deal with a bunch of cables.

    Falcon

  145. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Mac Genius at my local Apple Store, I have to call kind-of-shananagins to your last statement.

    AppleCare will only cover your battery if you are within the designated limits of a battery's expected life (~300 cycles).

    If you're above 300 cycles, you're on your own to replace the battery...

  146. MacBook docking station by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

    Yea, and let anyone sniff your passwords.

    Given this, I fail to see how a dock is in any way superior to popping your MacBook onto a desk, plugging in the display, power, and USB cable

    Having a dock means I wouldn't have to connect and disconnect all those cables. When I had a dock for my laptop years ago within seconds I could undock the laptop and slip it into it's bag then be out the door.

    the ports for which are all on the same side of the laptop for the new Mini DisplayPort models

    Right now I have an external USB hdd, printer, and scanner plugged into a USB port on the left side of the MBP (plugged into a hub that's plugged into the MBP). On the right I have my Ethernet cable and a Firewire external hdd plugged in. And when I get a new monitor it will also be plugged in on the right.

    MacBooks will even happily run with the lid closed, driving solely the external display. Where is the advantage of a space-wasting dock then the display itself effectively is the dock?

    Could I close the lip and slip my MBP into it's bag without discounting things? I was able to do precisely that when I had a Gateway laptop and the dock for it. While it doesn't matter me much now it is an advantage when you're in a hurry.

    Falcon

  147. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to be rude (I really don't), but is it unreasonable to expect one to read the title of the subthread? Perhaps even the first paragraph of a post one replies to?

    And then it gets modded "+1"?

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  148. And what the fuck is a "boxen"? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    A quick comment here, if I recall my German right "boxen" is plural for box, "boxes". I may be wrong though, it's been about 20 years since I've used German

    Falcon

    1. Re:And what the fuck is a "boxen"? by ral8158 · · Score: 1

      The german plural of "die Box" is "die Box".

  149. Re:That's no docking station.. It's a breakout box by ral8158 · · Score: 1

    ......And he's the fanboy?

  150. Behold, mere mortals! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    This is the dawning of the age of Schillermania! Forget the false god Jobs. The Schiller will lead us to the promised land!

    He even sang "The Best Is Yet to Come!'

    What? That was Tony Bennett? Oh. Still... PHIL! PHIL! PHIL!

    What... where my damned quad core iMac?

  151. docking stations by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Yup, works great too. My work configuration is an Intel 17" iMac with a 20" LCD attached.

    Mine is a MacBook Pro and I'm looking for another monitor, at least 24". I'd get Apple's new 24" LED backlit monitor but it costs a bit more than I'd like to pay. I've been looking lately at Doublesight's 26" DS-265 W or HP's 24" LP2475w. I want it for photography and they both had some good reviews, along with bad ones but mostly good, on photography websites like photo.net.

    I was hoping for an updated Mini, I'm in the market as soon as it's out.

    What I'd really like is a bigger MBP, about 2 years ago I saw a 21" laptop at BestBuy but it ran Windows, with higher resolution graphics and a bigger and faster hdd. My MBP has a 160 GB drive but I only have 25 GB free space on it.

    Falcon

  152. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    warranty *poof!* gone

    Wrong. With all the legitimate things to complain about with regards to Apple, I don't understand why people have to make shit up.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  153. Re:Darn... no iPhone update by plover · · Score: 1

    Actually, there was no update of any value. I walked past the Apple store at 7:00 tonight, and the place looked only as busy as any other ordinary Tuesday evening. This Macworld generated no buzz, drove nobody into the stores. When the iPhone came out, people were lined up outside the store to see them. When the Air was launched you had to jostle through a crowd to see the display in the store windows. Today? I didn't even see a line at the front counter. And I know it's not because their checkout magically got faster.

    At least their stock didn't tank on the (lack of) news. I have plenty of friends with money in them, they don't need more bad news.

    --
    John
  154. Re:iTunes DRM-free songs international or U.S. onl by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    iTunes is offering me the ability to upgrade my purchased music here in the UK, but is unable to do so at the moment (times out - I think everyone and his dog is hitting the store server right now), so it is international.

    Still nothing in the pacific region. Everything is still locked up tight.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  155. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Obviously I can't say for sure, but one thing Apple has historically been good about is using only one slot, despite the slightly higher cost to them. Its a nice perk.

  156. Dude its the labels by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Has it not occurred to you that this could be the labels not Apple? Seems vastly more likely.

  157. public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Moral public domain? I'm not sure what this means. Queen, through talent and hard work, created Bohemian Rhapsody

    I'm not sure what "moral public domain" is either, however Queen may vary well have created "Bohemian Rhapsody" with or without copyrights. People, whether musicians, composers, or programmers will create whether they have copyrights or not.

    Why is there some expectation that you should now get Queens work for free

    Queen has been paid handsomely for their music already.

    If you don't like paying for music, learn to play and compose your own

    Oh, I agree. Actually one of the things I'd change about education would be to require most kids to learn to play an instrument in school. Though it wasn't required one of the classes I took in junior high was band and I picked the clarinet to learn. Unfortunately I didn't stick with it though but I own a flute made by Nighteagle I want to learn to play. Not because I want to become rich and famous for playing it, which I doubt would ever happen, but because I'd like to be able to play it.

    Now, I'm not saying copyrights are bad but life + 50 or whatever is BAD. Twenty eight years is pushing it, under 10 years would be better. The reason for copyrights is to encourage creation, and shorter copyrights would encourage more to be created.

    Falcon

    1. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what "moral public domain" is either, however Queen may vary well have created "Bohemian Rhapsody" with or without copyrights. People, whether musicians, composers, or programmers will create whether they have copyrights or not.

      true.

      Queen has been paid handsomely for their music already.

      Who are you to decide that? They created it. If they think they've made enough, they're welcome to make the material available for free, but they haven't done that. I'd also suggest that you look a few posts up for some examples I made of other things that copyright does, aside from requiring you to pay for a song for personal use (examples of artists music being used in ways that they ideologically oppose). In those examples, are the creators of the works supposed to just suck it up and smile when their work is used to promote an agenda that's opposite to what they believe?

      Oh, I agree. Actually one of the things I'd change about education would be to require most kids to learn to play an instrument in school. Though it wasn't required one of the classes I took in junior high was band and I picked the clarinet to learn. Unfortunately I didn't stick with it though but I own a flute made by Nighteagle [davidnighteagle.com] I want to learn to play. Not because I want to become rich and famous for playing it, which I doubt would ever happen, but because I'd like to be able to play it.

      I'd really love to see more people creating their own music. Flood the market, end the "supergroups" and the record labels and go see live music more often instead of feeding money into a jukebox. But at the moment, people want the stuff that's familiar and presented to them over the radio a million times. That's not the fault of the people creating the music, that's the fault of the people buying and listening to it.

      Now, I'm not saying copyrights are bad but life + 50 or whatever is BAD. Twenty eight years is pushing it, under 10 years would be better. The reason for copyrights is to encourage creation, and shorter copyrights would encourage more to be created.

      Personally I'm more concerned with an artist losing control of how their work is used, but that's pretty inseparable from being able to set a price. You should not, for instance, be able to take the work of a gay musician and use it in a PR campaign to promote an anti-gay agenda and leave him with no recourse. You should not be able to take a deeply religious artist's work and use it as the soundtrack for a porn movie without securing their permission. Copyright is how these rights are managed.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    2. Re:public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      are the creators of the works supposed to just suck it up and smile when their work is used to promote an agenda that's opposite to what they believe?

      Those creators when they see or hear about what they created as being used inappropriately can get on their own soapbox and denounce them. Soapboxes are still free to use, no permit needed.

      Personally I'm more concerned with an artist losing control of how their work is used,

      If an artist wants control of their work then they can keep it private. They do not have to share it with anyone. But to encourage the creation of art, and science, creators are grant a monopoly of limited duration to their work. They should only have control for a limited period of tyme, after which their work enters the public domain. And yes I was, but after an accident I stopped, a creator. In college my major was Computer Engineering and I was a writer. Actually a magazine editor, for "Southern Living" was waiting for an article I was writing for the magazine when I had my accident. At the tyme I was working on 2 or 3 articles and a book. Now, I'm hoping to get started as a photographer and web developer. So copyrights will help me, however I'd still shorten copyright terms to not more than 10 years.

      Falcon

    3. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      You can place your own work into the public domain at any time you like though. Put it on your website with a message stating that it's free for others to use as they like, nothing is stopping you. I applaud people who do so, I think it's an admirable and generous thing to do. What I don't like is someone demanding that someone else do so.

      And honestly, lets put the big name artists aside for a moment. If one of your photos were used in a particularly heinous "Aryan Nations" campaign somehow, your soapbox wouldn't get you very far. You'd end up being known as "that racist photographer", and nobody would likely listen when you said otherwise (people remember scandals, but it seems rarely ever corrections). I can't imagine you'd be okay with that, and I suspect it might sour you on producing any more art. End result, the masterpiece you may have been destined to create never happens, everyone loses. Copyright gives you the chance to demand that the Aryans stop using your work, to sue for damages and very publicly and clearly state that you did not condone the message your work was co-opted to send.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    4. Re:public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If one of your photos were used in a particularly heinous "Aryan Nations" campaign somehow, your soapbox wouldn't get you very far.

      That or maybe "Aryan Nations" wouldn't get very far. There's also libel and slander, neither of which requires copyrights.

      Copyright gives you the chance to demand that the Aryans stop using your work, to sue for damages and very publicly and clearly state that you did not condone the message your work was co-opted to send.

      A libel or slander lawsuit can do the same thing.

      Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?

      Falcon

    5. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Libel and slander laws wouldn't help you in the least. I'm not talking about the Aryans saying anything about you, just using your work. And as far as using those laws against anyone else, ask Richard Jewel how well that works. Many people still remember him as a bomber, lawsuits notwithstanding.
      I think you underestimate the effect that misuse of creative works has on an author. Perhaps you really wouldn't be bothered by it, in which case I say put your stuff out there and make it restriction free for all to use. I hope you don't find yourself in a situation where you have to find out you'll really react to that kind of misuse. I doubt it'd be any fun at all.

      Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?

      Apples and oranges. I'm not going to change to an argument on the merits of patents vs copyright at this point because honestly, this thread is too damn long already and I'm just wearing down. Anyway, if you want to discuss patent vs copyright, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd like to do that, but I'm sticking to copyright and the length of time it lasts.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    6. Re:public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?

      Apples and oranges. I'm not going to change to an argument on the merits of patents vs copyright at this point because honestly, this thread is too damn long already and I'm just wearing down.

      Ok then, I'll stick to copyrights. Should Homer's "Iliad", Helen Keller's plays, and Édouard Manet's and Claude Monet's paintings still be under copyright?

      The only reason for copyrights is to encourage the creation of arts, and copyright terms that last too long do not to this. You encourage creation by making artists continue to create, by having short copyright terms this will happen.

      Why don't you admit it, you want artists, and their descents, to have a free pass forever.

      Falcon

    7. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Ok then, I'll stick to copyrights. Should Homer's "Iliad", Helen Keller's plays, and Ãdouard Manet's and Claude Monet's paintings still be under copyright?

      The only reason for copyrights is to encourage the creation of arts, and copyright terms that last too long do not to this. You encourage creation by making artists continue to create, by having short copyright terms this will happen.

      Why don't you admit it, you want artists, and their descents, to have a free pass forever

      All I can say to that is you haven't been reading what I've been saying consistently throughout this thread: I do not support copyright in perpetuity. I have been specific that I support copyright that lasts until the author's death, plus about 50 - 70 years, which you can see in multiple posts that I've made on this subject in the past few days.
      I'm generally happy to discuss my views on a subject, but I think I have a right to be irritated if someone makes up a position, assigns it to me in the face of easily found statements I've made to the contrary, and then demands I defend that position.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    8. Re:public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I have been specific that I support copyright that lasts until the author's death, plus about 50 - 70 years, which you can see in multiple posts that I've made on this subject in the past few days.

      Ok, so you don't want copyrights forever. How does an author create work once he or she is dead? Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once someone is dead they can't create anymore. But if copyrights only last say 7 years then an author has to keep writing keep earning money.

      I think I have a right to be irritated if someone makes up a position, assigns it to me in the face of easily found statements I've made to the contrary, and then demands I defend that position.

      And I get irritated when someone does not answer a pertinent question in a discussion.

      Falcon

    9. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Again, I've said on multiple occasions in this thread, that although I advocate 50 - 70 years after the author's death, I also believe it's an arguable point. At this point, all you're asking me to do is repeat the same points that I've made on multiple occasions. If you'd like to see my answers to the question of why I think they should survive the author, scroll up a bit, it's in there.

      And I get irritated when someone does not answer a pertinent question in a discussion.

      Then you have no beef with me. I believe I've answered the question, and I've told you where to find those answers. I realize this is Slashdot, but personally when I accuse someone of holding a position, and they point out that I'm wrong, I apologize for the mistake. I don't usually just change to a different accusation.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    10. Re:public domain by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      At this point, all you're asking me to do is repeat the same points that I've made on multiple occasions.

      No I'm not, you have not answered how a person can create more stuff when they are dead, and I have repeatedly asked that.

      Falcon

    11. Re:public domain by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      In several places during this thread I said I prefer that all those closely involved (such as immediate family) with a given work not be exposed to uses that the author would not have approved of. It's a courtesy, and also one of the reasons that I have said over and over is an arguable point. I'm firm on copyright lasting until the death of the creator. I support a period of 50 - 70 years after that person's death, but I concede that this is an arguable point. This is, I believe, the fourth time I have said this.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  158. Battery... hey, wait a sec... by onitzuka · · Score: 1

    I used to have a Toshiba laptop with the bigger long-life REMOVABLE BATTERY and it got between 6-8 hours of life out of it. That laptop had NVIDIA graphics, too... and ~2GHz CPU (single core). Apple is giving "internal vs. external" as the reason they are giving, but it does not appear to be THE reason.

  159. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    I have. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

  160. MP3 vs AAC by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    Please see MP3 Royalty Rates. MP3 music sold requires 2% royalty payment.

    In addition, MP3-related lawsuits were still raging in the legal world. (Example 1)

    In contrast, for AAC, "No licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format."

  161. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever used FireWire target disk mode?

    Yes, I've used it before a few times... it's sad to see that aspect go. I'm not sure how new users are supposed to do user directory transfers to new systems now, I guess the idea is the Apple Store manages it for you? I've not had to do that yet so I don't know what they offer to make that happen.

    I also agree that firewire performance is better for external devices (most of the drives I used were external firewire, and I have an external firewire drive for a Mac mini I use as an HTPC). But the difference for 99% of people is so marginal that it really doesn't matter than much, external USB is fast enough for consumer DV work.

    Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not an engineer and his whole "make things shiny, then make them functional"

    I think Apple is just quick to embrace market realities - and the reality is that even for camcorders, Firewire is on the outs. So like I said it will remain in pro models for higher end camcorders (although HDV is pushing FW400 for quality feeds so that's mostly 800) along with storage (though if you have a higher end system eSata is better if more cumbersome).

    The mistake is thinking Apple considers fashion first, when the products are very much about a balance of functionality. Otherwise they would not remain popular against cheaper options.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  162. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by GaryPatterson · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Apple" "has" "more"

    So, you're a fanboy, eh? Blind zealot, go back to your Mac.

    Yes, intentionally quoting out of context is fun!

  163. higher quality recordings by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    In the future, the internet will be faster, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that you'll be able to download regular CD audio. In fact, if you think there's an emerging market for that, you could start it up yourself.

    Actually there very well may be a good market for them, afterall "Vinyl records are making a comeback".

    one last thing -- CD audio sounds flat and empty compared to DVD-Audio. If you could easily download CD-quality audio, would that be good enough, or would you then want DVD-Audio?

    Me, I want vinyl. And a reel to reel tape deck. When I get a new turntable and tape deck the first tyme I play a record I'll record on tape then put the record away for safe keeping and listen to the tape.

    Falcon

  164. Get Over Your Bad Self by His+Shadow · · Score: 1
    by aliquis Short for Slashdot moderation: Negative on OS X = flamebait. Negative on Windows = insightful.
    For 20 years Apple Mac users had to hear about how retarded they were, from Windows drones, for going against the herd. Now that Apple is on top of the world, the poor Windows Wankers, annoyed at Apple's success, are pretending that Microsoft and and it's 3rd rate products are somehow under appreciated and are the "underdog".

    Move on, already.

    --

    Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

  165. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't offer MB with matte screens. That's the connection.

    No, let's not rehash that discussion again. I will not compromise my eyes. I know many other people who won't. Clearly we are not an important enough market to Apple. So be it. It's only business.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  166. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by capnkr · · Score: 1

    You are assuming that what they claim, is what they can - and will - deliver.

    I've yet to see a battery that lasted as long as the person who sold it claimed it would. 8 hours? Is that in standby, or in use? I would wager that the "actively in use" time will probably be closer to that 5 hour figure. That still isn't bad, I know. But people are just taking that claim at face value, and it just doesn't make sense.

    Unless, of course, Apple has indeed produced a battery that is magically 3X better than the 'industry standard', in which case they should forget laptops for a bit, and get busy putting all the other battery companies out of business, ASAP.

    Think about it: a battery that is 3X better than current technology, and they are only going to use it in a relatively high-end laptop with a small user base?

    I think not. Occam's Razor.

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  167. Re:Should have better video then 9600m for a $2700 by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

    With the recent 15" refresh, I was surprised to see the RAM upgrade from 2GB to 4GB was actually reasonable (about what I'd pay online), but that's the only generosity from Apple I've seen. 4GB to 8GB is still more than a low-end Macbook(!) here.

  168. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by MojoStan · · Score: 1

    Additionally Apple care will cover the battery for 3 years-- that's not something you get on most warantee contracts.

    I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this point. It looks like the battery gets just 1 year, even if you buy Apple Care.

    From Apple's "features" page:

    • "The battery in the new 17-inch MacBook Pro lasts up to 8 hours on a single charge [1] and can be recharged up to 1000 [2]"

    The bottom of the page explains the second footnote:

    • "2. Apple does not warrant the battery beyond Apple's one-year Limited Warranty. The battery has a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by an Apple Service Provider. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information."
    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  169. Apparently they do though... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was not aware when I first posted, but the 17" Macbook Pro has an anti-glare option. Some have described in as Matte, others not. Hopefully they'll have examples in the store so you can try them both out...

    That might be the compromise that would satisfy most people, though as I said since matte screens do not really stop all glare I'm not sure I find them that much more useful in practice for anyone, I think people like the thought of them more than the reality.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Apparently they do though... by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      I am aware of 17" matte. However, as you will notice from earlier posts in this subthread, 17" is not an option for most road warriors as it cannot be effectively used on planes.

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  170. Incredibly wrong :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "if you use it every day, including saturdays and sundays, FOR 8 HOURS A DAY, then in 2.7 years, the battery will be down to an 80% charge or 6.4 hours. Which is longer than your current 5 hour battery lasts."

    1000 full discharges at 80%?? LMAO. I would be very, very, very, very happy to get 80% at even 500 full discharge cycles. Full discharge cycles are hard on Li-ion batteries.

  171. your completely ignoring the monitor by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    which is the main reason the majority of us have docks for our laptops.

    I would say the priority is
    Monitor
    Keyboard
    Mouse

    I need a large (read 24+ ) screen for doing the work I can show clients "acceptably" on a laptop screen.

    The dock means I can just drop the laptop in and not think about it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  172. Only thing I've seen is MacRumours' buyers guide by Sits · · Score: 1

    MacRumour's Buyers Guide. It tries to predict new releases of existing products based upon age and rumours. It's not always right but it does seem better than randomly guessing...

  173. Re:Darn... Graphics matter. by guidryp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Newsflash. Macs run windows too now. When I bought a new PC last year I would have bought a Mac instead if there had been a decent mid tower.

    Instead I handpicked my components for another PC. Nice mid tower (Antec Solo) dual core, 8800GT graphics. 500G HD. For not much more than a woefully underpowered mac mini.

    I use my PC for a bit of everything. Media center duty with dual screens. Mini fails, can't drive dual screens, might have a hard time with some 1080p codecs as well. I also play some games. Newsflash, you can dual boot macs now.

    I also added 2TB more internal HDs.

    If there had been a mac with decent graphics and dual monitor support and full size internal HD, I would have bought one. But nothing like that existed, forcing me back to the PC even though, I was willing to try a MAC.

    A mid tower or a mini with upgradable graphics and full size HD would be a great media center PC IMO. I am sure it would fit a lot of other peoples needs as well.

    But instead Apple makes a line of laptops, but some don't have batteries (Imac) and some don't have batteries or a screen, or a keyboard (mini), but they all share laptop limitations.

    They need to build at least one real desktop machine (and no the ridiculously priced pro doesn't count).

  174. iTunes on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, with the DRM gone, how are my chances for a native iTunes on Linux?

    Or, how complicated would it be for a third party to implement an application, e.g. Amarok plugin for iTunes?

  175. So take it apart. Big deal. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    It isn't that hard to take a laptop apart, either, especially if you only have to do it once every few years. I think that substantially increased battery time is well worth that slight inconvenience.

  176. Trade off for removable battery by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    You do know that this is pure horse shit, right?

    There is no trade off. You make the battery removable. You might get a seam on your casing. Oh no. But you most certainly do not lose 28.5% of your space! (1 - 1/1.4)

    That's kind of foolish. You need a separate case for the battery. You need some sort of robust compartment that won't be damaged by people popping the battery in and out, and that will hold the battery in place. You need foolproof connectors on the laptop and on the battery. You need some sort of latch that won't break or come loose unexpectedly. All of that adds weight and take up space. And you gain what? Avoiding the slight inconvenience of taking the case apart every few years to replace the battery?

  177. Re:Engadget wasn't the best site to get this from by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    iWork '09, among other things, finally becomes a serious contender for an MS Office alternative, because it fully supports "OLE" type capabilities. I can finally make a chart in "Numbers" and link it to a Pages doc or Keynote presentation, and have the chart change dynamically when I update figures in the spreadsheet. Without this functionality, it really was kind of "second class" as Office suites go.....

    It also helps that Office 2008 was a dud (sort of like Vista). No more full compatibility with Widows version, no Visual Basic, no Solver in Excel--basically lacking all of the features that made me use Office.

    And it's compatible with EndNote. That is big for me, although frankly I'd rather have compatibility with Sente.

  178. DSP by ovu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Music and film production suites frequently employ DSP chips, which are nestled cosily onto PCI cards. They are quite common in these industries.

    1. Re:DSP by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Music and film production suites frequently employ DSP chips, which are nestled cosily onto PCI cards. They are quite common in these industries.

      Hasn't that all moved to FireWire these days?

      All of the replies here have mentioned solutions that apply generally only for server-use and high-end media production, neither of which you'd typically find yourself doing on a $500 computer, regardless of the manufacturer.

      Anyone who cares enough about massive amounts of storage or exotic disk controllers can build their own systems and run Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris. It'll be cheaper, better-supported, and you shouldn't have a problem doing it, considering that your technical aptitude is clearly above that of the typical PC/Mac user. I just rebuilt a PC for that exact purpose, to replace an old 450mhz G4 tower I got used a few years back that had been serving that purpose up until now.

      Sure, it'd be nice if Apple had a cheaper version of the Mac Pro. However, it's really not worth crying over. Odds are, you can either get by with a Mini, or with something that isn't a mac. If you're a gamer, you'll be happier with Windows, and if you're an über-geek, you'll be happier with Linux. This is Apple's loss, not ours.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  179. I'm skeptical about this. by Shag · · Score: 1

    I've been a road warrior for years, and frankly, the last thing I want in my laptop bag is another pound of weight in the form of a spare battery. Yet I keep seeing the tech media spewing forth this "people who travel really, really want to take two batteries with them everywhere" nonsense.

    Why would they want this? It's not the 1990s anymore. Cars come with AC outlets. Airplanes have AC outlets. Trains have AC outlets. Heck, some planes and trains (and buses?!) even have wifi. Even in Least Developed Countries, the power doesn't usually go off for enough of the day to run down a battery. ;)

    Light weight plus long battery life makes me happy. Maybe the other road warriors are masochistic?

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  180. Sleeper cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, if the power consumption while sleeping is consistent with the 15" MacBook Pro, the 17" battery might power the sleeping laptop for 2 days. I preferred the previous models where it could go weeks.

  181. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by tgd · · Score: 1

    Have you tried it?

    The vast majority of them (such as my HV20) have USB but its used *only* for still images, not for pulling off the DV/HDV stream.

  182. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one "market reality" they're overlooking is that they're about to lose the entire laptop-based project studio marketshare to pc laptops with 1394, which people can still use their audio interfaces with.

    it's funny, because for years apple pushed macs as the computer you had to have to run a small recording studio.

    now they're the computer you can't run a small studio with, because your firewire audio interfaces and recording drives are suddenly orphans.

  183. Re:Engadget wasn't the best site to get this from by Refrag · · Score: 1

    I agree with you on Engadget. It's unfortunate that MacRumorsLive was "haxx0red" because they were providing the best live coverage until then in my opinion.

    I also agree with you about iLife, iWork, and of course iTunes Store being the big news of the day. It really brought Apple's last appearance at Macworld back to the Mac. The new iLife features are fantastic, I cannot wait to finally get all of my photos tagged with the people in them. This is simply too time consuming to do it manually. And being able to crowd-source tagging new Faces in iPhoto via your Facebook network is a brilliant stroke.

    By the way, Numbers also has vastly increased the number of functions it supports. There are now over 250 functions available. (http://www.apple.com/iwork/numbers/functions.html) And in addition to being able to link charts from Numbers to either Pages or Keynote, you can also restyle them and retain the link to the data. If you can do that with MS Office, I never figured out how.

    Keynote Remote for the iPhone is also a pretty cool addition, but I am disappointed that they're charging 99Â for it.

    And, finally, let's hear it for Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Music" open letter finally bearing all of its fruit with the iTunes Store going totally iTunes Plus (sans DRM, 256 kbps) by the end of this quarter â" it is already most of the way there.

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  184. Re:wrong. wrong wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to clarify -- apple covers manufacturing defects for 3 years. If a battery is "depleted" (no longer holding a charge due to use, and the chemicals breaking down) that is not covered under the warranty. If you deplete your battery through normal use, it will not be covered, either under the 1 year warranty or the applecare plan.

  185. Re:Darn... no Mac Mini update OK, then why not by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    a LAP REPLICATOR, or lap accentuator, so those enthralling MacBooks can be more titillating...? Instead of a magnetic attachment, throw in a pneumatic one...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  186. But wait? Where the evil monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, sure, Steve Jobs put the pressure on the labels to drop DRM, and paid the price after his deal with EMI to have the other labels give Amazon the rights that they forbade Apple from having. And they did get their triple-tier pricing as price.

    10 million songs online, anywhere you want 'em. Pretty good.

    B-But, didn't Jobs want the DRM to tie you to their lousy music players? You mean--

  187. Try pricing out 4GB PC3-8500 SO-DIMMs by wtd · · Score: 1

    I did thius earlier today. Went to Crucial. It's $500 each for the necessary modules. That's not too terribly out of line with Apple's $1200.

  188. Size != Capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't say the size increased by 40%. The capacity increased by 40%: "This created enough space for a battery with 40 percent greater capacity â" one that can run for up to 8 hours on a single charge." (see http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/)

  189. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    But the 15" doesn't have the matte option, either. So I guess that was the source of my confusion.

    Hopefully now that the 17" has the option, it might be available on others, eventually.

  190. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by tgd · · Score: 1

    Just as an FYI, so you don't look like you're talking out your ass among people who know the subject you're talking about:

    HDV and HV have exactly the same bitrate.

    HDV doesn't push FW400 any more than DV does. Why? HDV1080i is 25mbit MPEG2 -- the exact same bitrate as DV.

    But nice try. I'm sure every other point you made in your rant is accurate.

  191. Re:Actually it does mean you can use a DV or HDV c by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    HDV doesn't push FW400 any more than DV does. Why? HDV1080i is 25mbit MPEG2 -- the exact same bitrate as DV.

    On anything using DV tape for storage, yes.

    But I'm talking about camera's more along the line of the Red and other higher end disc based cameras.

    Nothing that stores uncompressed HDV footage is going to work over FW400, at least not as a live video stream.

    More information to read.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  192. Re:Matte in smaller MBPs (make them "much smaller" by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

    That's why I wrote "We need matte display on smaller MBPs, not 17". 15" used to have the matte option. It was removed a while ago. Apple is going the wrong direction as far as I am concerned.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  193. Try Pathfinder http://cocoatech.com/ by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    That looks like it's on Leopard. Having just installed Leopard yesterday I'm not yet familiar with it. Actually the only reason I upgraded is because Java 6 only runs on Leopard and I want to learn it seeing as how Java 5 has been deprecated.

    Falcon

  194. The german plural of "die Box" is "die Box". by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I lost most of my German so I just checked Babelfish and it says the English translation of the German word "boxen" is "boxes".

    Falcon