capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
fat phil
Apr 13, 09:28 AM
The product looks good for what it is, and I read most of the comments here... while I'm not a video guy I am an artist and IT professional and I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal. I have seen more and more artists move back to PCs lately and even though I have been moving the other direction, I can't fully blame them.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I don't think they're deliberately setting out to hurt the Pro users in this case - they genuinely think they've found a better way to work. If it's true then it's all good.
Even if they were trying to open up the userbase, it doesn't take Stephen Hawkins to figure out why they'd want to.
2,000,000 Pro users @ $600
or
10,000,000 "casual" users + 2,000,000 Pro users @ $300
Yeah. I'd do it too...:)
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I don't think they're deliberately setting out to hurt the Pro users in this case - they genuinely think they've found a better way to work. If it's true then it's all good.
Even if they were trying to open up the userbase, it doesn't take Stephen Hawkins to figure out why they'd want to.
2,000,000 Pro users @ $600
or
10,000,000 "casual" users + 2,000,000 Pro users @ $300
Yeah. I'd do it too...:)
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:31 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications.
How does this work, exactly?
How does this work, exactly?
Iscariot
Mar 25, 06:48 PM
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
TheUndertow
May 2, 12:00 PM
"Bigger".
I prefer More Magical...
The fact that this is news says something about the relative lack of threats.
Seems like "Child's Play" compared to Malware and Viruses on most Windows devices I've owned, despite anti-spyware, malware, and anti-virus loaded, updated, and in "full" protection mode.
I prefer More Magical...
The fact that this is news says something about the relative lack of threats.
Seems like "Child's Play" compared to Malware and Viruses on most Windows devices I've owned, despite anti-spyware, malware, and anti-virus loaded, updated, and in "full" protection mode.
twoodcc
Oct 26, 12:29 AM
well i must say i'd be kinda suprized to see an update this early with apple. especially since i just bought a mac pro. i'd be mad if the prices of the one i just bought goes down
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 03:46 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:11 PM
Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:54 AM
GUI interfaces are a fad. Mouse-based input is a fad. The Internet is a fad. Touch computing is a fad.
Beware the observations of the Old Guard.
Beware the observations of the Old Guard.
xiaoyu04
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
wow, that was a fast announcement? if i remember correctly the clovertons come out mid nov don't they?
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:25 AM
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
I'm not really that surprised that my iMac and iPhone get their inspiration and design cues from Apple. :p
I'm not really that surprised that my iMac and iPhone get their inspiration and design cues from Apple. :p
brianus
Aug 29, 11:53 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
*LTD*
Apr 24, 04:59 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Except that you can't paint Buddhists or Taoists with this sort of brush. Yet they are "religions" too.
Except that you can't paint Buddhists or Taoists with this sort of brush. Yet they are "religions" too.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 03:41 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
BJNY
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
Any chance the ATI X1950 will be CTO as well?
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2858
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2858
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
liketom
Sep 20, 02:09 AM
to make this work better and for apple to take the number 1 slot of internet download movies - they need an TV ad like the mac/pc ones
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
cartwagon
Sep 20, 01:32 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
Edit:
@Ino: Yes, you are correct, I wrote this yesterday before seeing that diagram. However, it has an HDMI output, but the iTunes store only puts out normal TV quality(currently). In essence, unless you are using Handbrake to make your own rips above 640x480, you can use your HDMI output and it does not matter. Since Job's whole plan here is to make us buy iTV and then only be able to buy from iTunes, this is very relevant. I know this release is months away and things may change before then. Whom do you think apple will bed with, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?
@ Project: Quicktime can do .wmv with Flip4Mac, but cannot play .avi. (or .bin or .rm) . The 3ivx codec patch only works for some avi files. There is a convoluted way to use DivX doctor to make .mov files, but there is no reason to bother. MPlayer and VLC take care of everything. My point is that I don't think I need to pay $299US for something that does only a third of what my xbox already does, and I also don't need to pay this exorbitant amount for the privilege of boxing myself into a corner where I can only buy movies from the iTunes store. Even if I wasn't using my xbox to stream and play everything, I'd still save my money and press play on MPlayer and then sit down. Know what I mean? We all have a way of playing media on our TVs already, even if it's a total welfare solution like $6 worth of RCA cable. I am usually pretty pro-apple, but I need to be more impressed to drop that kind of money on something like this.
Much love for you all,
cartwagon
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:04 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
