I'm not talking about specifics here. You wrote "Now, the other question is whether this only involves hardware. I wouldn't think so" - claiming that there should be no difference between giving away a free hardware feature vs. a free software feature.
I pointed out several examples of why hardware and software are very different items, and the biggest one is that the per-unit cost of software is minuscule (tens of cents for CDs, fractions of cents for downloads) compared to hardware.
Yes. I understand. I'm pointing out that hardware may not involve a cost differential.
Is DVD encoding done under a different licence? iLife is $79, family pack is $99. It's the same codec, just that the encoder is limited to only DVD use. I think there is the HDV export feature, which uses MPEG-2 as well. The DVD player is MPEG-2.
The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.
Pro is the kicker to get people to want to pay for it.
The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.
If that's all you need, then you don't need a license. Full screen mode is there, only the menu-bar item in QuickTime Player is disabled. You can trigger that command with the following one-line AppleScript:
Code:
tell application "QuickTime Player" to present movie 1
Use the Script Editor utility to enter and compile this. Then put it in ~/Library/Scripts and enable the Scripts menu-icon using the AppleScript Utility.
Now, when a QuickTime movie is playing in QuickTime Player, go to the Script menu, pick the full-screen script, and it will play full-screen.
I keep reminding myself we don't KNOW this is true yet. I understand that Apple is enmeshed in legal troubles right now, but this $5 fee seems ludicrous and overcautious.
I also don't know how it counts as a new functionality when you could already access it by running Windows drivers on Boot Camp.
Hopefully this rumor is false. Otherwise, this seems really shady.
If you buy a Airport Extreme 802.11n you get free unlock for all your 802.11n computers:
Firstly, thanks for spelling "Melbournian" that way. It seems the Melbourne-based media always spell that word "Melburnian". But I digress...
My argument wasn't that we wouldn't be charged; it was merely that a US law would not apply to Apple subsidiaries around the world, just because the parent company is US-based.
Schmidty.
Heh. I think it should be Melbournian too, yeah. No worries, I get your point that the US law would not apply to Apple companies around the world. 8) ...Heh. I was today just in NextByte opposite FedSquare service department and there were signs on A4 sheets printed at the reception saying stuff like "We are MyMac, we do not work for Apple... please do not bully or become abusive otherwise we will refuse service outright which is our right....."
Globally it's a very complex interplay between Apple HQ, Apple in other countries, and Apple resellers...
Check this out, they say "The AirPort Extreme Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, and IEEE 802.11g. The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom."
WTF does "does not allow wide-channel operation" MEAN ??
Oh, just on a side note my current physical location in the world is pretty fluid, I am a tragic Citoyen Sans Frontieres
How about Apple fixes the numerous problems with Mac Pro B/G wireless too? Heck, I might even pay for that.
I've heard bad stuff about 802.11n in general. I hope Apple gets it mostly right. At least it has MIMO without like a hundred aerials sticking out ... Though as a poster pointed out, everything is just rounded rectangles - Cinema Display, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBookPro, AppleTV, AirportExtreme, iPod, iPodNano, iPodShuffle, iPhone....
The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)
The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.
This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.
Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.
I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.
WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.
Will the 11n standard work with Core Duos, such as the MacBook Pro I purchased and received a week before the Core 2 Duo was announced? I have been pleased that the improvement in wireless reception over my PGG4 Pismo on an AirPort Base Station extreme net, but as I am planning to but the new AirPort, I thought I would ask.
Will the 11n standard work with Core Duos, such as the MacBook Pro I purchased and received a week before the Core 2 Duo was announced? I have been pleased that the improvement in wireless reception over my PGG4 Pismo on an AirPort Base Station extreme net, but as I am planning to but the new AirPort, I thought I would ask.
I don't think the Core(1)Duo [Yonah] models have 802.11n, AFAIK.
The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)
The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.
This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.
Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.
I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.
WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.
1. Yeah we'll have to see user experiences with the 802.11n Airport Extreme base station and receivers. Last I read a few months ago, in the PC magazines they have been pretty scathing in their reports on the 802.11n gear out there.
2. The standard is in a bit of a mess because it sounds like it won't be rectified for a while. Apple has taken the risk though with their pre-N gear (receivers and base station), so we'll see how the firmware updates and cross-compatibility with PC-related pre-N stuff goes.
3. It's an early-adopter kinda risk, or for that matter, minimal risk for early adopters willing to have a total Apple solution, which is what Apple prefers and is banking on. 802.11n Core2Duos, 802.11n AppleTV, 802.11n Airport Extreme Base Station. Somewhere in there a ethernet connection between the Base Station and a Mac Mini with external RAID1 FW400 for a nice little NetworkAreaStorage deal. For those that go full on with their home networking. MMmmm... EM radiation.... aw yeahhhhhhh.
BTW Yeah my MacBook 13" Core(1)Duo has very very good 802.11[b] reception.
Haven't tried it with 802.11[g].
Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple I'm really struggling, since I've got Road Runner Cable from Time Warner and they give ZERO help on anything "wireless', but instead try to charge me rent for the cable modem itself before linking to a Base Station.
There are two good articles in Sat. WSJ, on the same page. Both are relevant to Apple.
The first one deals with this fee, now set at $1.99.
Here is the deal.
Apple is telling the truth, and fudging at the same time.
According to The Article:
Apple Gets a Bruise by Blaming A $1.99 Fee on Accounting Rules
I'll quote some from the article.
Quote:
"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, managing director of research at Glass Lewis & Co. and a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"So, why would Apple charge customers if it didn't have to? The company felt it had no choice, based on the accounting outcome that would have resulted had it given the product away, said a person familiar with the matter. In that sense, even if the accounting rules didn't explicitly say such a charge was necessary, that was the result, this person said..."
"Still, Apple's language surprised officials who oversee accounting rules. "Accounting doesn't require any charge for anything," says Edward Trott, a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes the accounting rules. "No, GAAP doesn't tell you to do anything. You need to work out your transaction with your customer, and GAAP will tell you how to reflect your transaction with that customer."
"The accounting rules in this case are analogous, accounting experts say, to income-tax rules affecting the sale of stock. If an investor sells shares less than a year year after buying, gains are taxed at personal income-tax rates that can range as high as 35%. If the investor sells after holding the stock for more than a year, gains are taxed at the capital-gains rate of 15%.
The income-tax rules dictate the amount of tax to be paid, but they don't tell the person when, or whether, to sell."
This is interesting. What is being said, is that Apple gains financially, as far as taxes are concerned, by charging this fee.
It also says (not directly, but by explaining what the rules are) that there is no penalty by NOT charging this fee, just no tax advantage.
Apple therefore, does NOT have to charge this fee. They are doing it because they want to.
I wouldn't mind that, being a stockholder, and all, but I would prefer they "come clean" , and explain WHY they are doing this, rather than making it sound as though they HAVE to.
The other article,
How Expensing for Options Throws Analysts Off Course
is very interesting, and explains why so many analysts are not in ageeement, something we have commented upon here many times.
I won't get into it unless there is interest here, or it's thought I should bring it up somewhere else.
It would be nice if the WSJ website was not paid subscription, or I would simply post links. As it is, sometimes you can read the first couple of lines, whic isnt useful, except to prove to those few natural skeptics here that the article really does exist online as well. But, I didn't look.
Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple I'm really struggling, since I've got Road Runner Cable from Time Warner and they give ZERO help on anything "wireless', but instead try to charge me rent for the cable modem itself before linking to a Base Station.
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.
Cubit, I'd have to say JeffDM does have a bit of a point. But essentially, you should be able to take your cable modem and then take an ethernet out from the cable modem into your wireless base station. From here on out it's a lot of experimenting and mucking around and all that.
I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.
If you are currently accessing your cable Internet via cable modem, with an ethernet connection from the cable modem into your computer, then there is a very very high probability you can go ahead and hook up the cable modem ethernet out into a wireless router... The cable company would have to be very very evil if it asked for extra to somehow "enable" this part of things.
That said, as far as I understand, you get cable coming in, one part obviously goes to set-top-box for TV. You *will* need a "broadband cable modem" (if you don't already have one) for the Internet access side of things. Said "broadband cable modem" should have a simple Ethernet out. If it only has a USB connection, that's nasty, you need to find another broadband provider.
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended)..... ...But when you *do* get it working for the most part it just sits there 24/7, unless, it *is* shite and you have to reset it once every few days/ weeks or a few times a day. \
I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.
It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended)..... ...But when you *do* get it working for the most part it just sits there 24/7, unless, it *is* shite and you have to reset it once every few days/ weeks or a few times a day. \
I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.
I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.
It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.
I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.
I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.
I don't use cable, so I don't know what you might have. But my Covad DSL provider first gave me a Zyzel gateway (DSL modem + router), then after it died, two years later, a Netopia gateway, which I use. The Netopia comes with wireless, as well as the four 10/100 outputs. Just for the hell of it I set up the wireless, with both encryption methods, as they are allowed.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Wireless works the same way wired Ethernet does, except for the need for encryption. My main network includes a Linksys EG008W gigabit 8 port workgroup switch. That gets plugged into one of the 10/100 ports on the Netopia.The main netwoek works at Gigabit, while pulling the 6 Mb/s DSL from the Netopia router. A laptop can pull from the wireless directly from the Netopia, as can, possibly later, an iPhone.
I've used Linksys over the years, and haven't had any problems.
I don't use cable, so I don't know what you might have. But my Covad DSL provider first gave me a Zyzel gateway (DSL modem + router), then after it died, two years later, a Netopia gateway, which I use. The Netopia comes with wireless, as well as the four 10/100 outputs. Just for the hell of it I set up the wireless, with both encryption methods, as they are allowed.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Wireless works the same way wired Ethernet does, except for the need for encryption. My main network includes a Linksys EG008W gigabit 8 port workgroup switch. That gets plugged into one of the 10/100 ports on the Netopia.The main netwoek works at Gigabit, while pulling the 6 Mb/s DSL from the Netopia router. A laptop can pull from the wireless directly from the Netopia, as can, possibly later, an iPhone.
I've used Linksys over the years, and haven't had any problems.
The encryption was much of the problem. The Linksys cable modem was also either slow or faulty in getting DHCP information from the ISP. The access point was also slow or faulty in handing out DHCP information to the same brand wireless card. Hooking up my MBP directly to the cable modem actually fetched the DHCP properly, but the access point could not do the same reliably, even using the same Ethernet cable.
The access point also required a firmware update to work properly. I was able to use Linksys' access point with my MBP with encryption just fine. I think my Buffalo wireless adapter worked properly too, but using the Linksys Cardbus module and the Linksys setup software for XP, it would often not accept the same encryption key.
I also have a Linksys gigabit switch that would lock up on occasion, requiring a reset. Power level changes from a UPS because of power interruptions had caused it to lock up and stall the network, when no other device connected to the same UPS had a problem. I reverted to a hand-me-down Asante 10/100 managed switch which has performed flawlessly since.
Comments
I'm not talking about specifics here. You wrote "Now, the other question is whether this only involves hardware. I wouldn't think so" - claiming that there should be no difference between giving away a free hardware feature vs. a free software feature.
I pointed out several examples of why hardware and software are very different items, and the biggest one is that the per-unit cost of software is minuscule (tens of cents for CDs, fractions of cents for downloads) compared to hardware.
Yes. I understand. I'm pointing out that hardware may not involve a cost differential.
Is DVD encoding done under a different licence? iLife is $79, family pack is $99. It's the same codec, just that the encoder is limited to only DVD use. I think there is the HDV export feature, which uses MPEG-2 as well. The DVD player is MPEG-2.
The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.
Pro is the kicker to get people to want to pay for it.
The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.
If that's all you need, then you don't need a license. Full screen mode is there, only the menu-bar item in QuickTime Player is disabled. You can trigger that command with the following one-line AppleScript:
tell application "QuickTime Player" to present movie 1
Use the Script Editor utility to enter and compile this. Then put it in ~/Library/Scripts and enable the Scripts menu-icon using the AppleScript Utility.
Now, when a QuickTime movie is playing in QuickTime Player, go to the Script menu, pick the full-screen script, and it will play full-screen.
I keep reminding myself we don't KNOW this is true yet. I understand that Apple is enmeshed in legal troubles right now, but this $5 fee seems ludicrous and overcautious.
I also don't know how it counts as a new functionality when you could already access it by running Windows drivers on Boot Camp.
Hopefully this rumor is false. Otherwise, this seems really shady.
If you buy a Airport Extreme 802.11n you get free unlock for all your 802.11n computers:
http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/
"Does my Mac support 802.11n?
These Mac computers support 802.11n in the new AirPort Extreme Base Station using the included enabler software:
* iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
* MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
* MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
* Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option"
Firstly, thanks for spelling "Melbournian" that way. It seems the Melbourne-based media always spell that word "Melburnian". But I digress...
My argument wasn't that we wouldn't be charged; it was merely that a US law would not apply to Apple subsidiaries around the world, just because the parent company is US-based.
Schmidty.
Heh. I think it should be Melbournian too, yeah. No worries, I get your point that the US law would not apply to Apple companies around the world. 8) ...Heh. I was today just in NextByte opposite FedSquare service department and there were signs on A4 sheets printed at the reception saying stuff like "We are MyMac, we do not work for Apple... please do not bully or become abusive otherwise we will refuse service outright which is our right....."
Globally it's a very complex interplay between Apple HQ, Apple in other countries, and Apple resellers...
On http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
Check this out, they say "The AirPort Extreme Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, and IEEE 802.11g. The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom."
WTF does "does not allow wide-channel operation" MEAN ??
Oh, just on a side note my current physical location in the world is pretty fluid, I am a tragic Citoyen Sans Frontieres
How about Apple fixes the numerous problems with Mac Pro B/G wireless too? Heck, I might even pay for that.
I've heard bad stuff about 802.11n in general. I hope Apple gets it mostly right. At least it has MIMO without like a hundred aerials sticking out
I've heard bad stuff about 802.11n in general.
There are two issues here.
The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)
The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.
This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.
Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.
I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.
WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.
Will the 11n standard work with Core Duos, such as the MacBook Pro I purchased and received a week before the Core 2 Duo was announced? I have been pleased that the improvement in wireless reception over my PGG4 Pismo on an AirPort Base Station extreme net, but as I am planning to but the new AirPort, I thought I would ask.
I don't think the Core(1)Duo [Yonah] models have 802.11n, AFAIK.
Only the Core2Duos, as listed on http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/
BTW Yeah my MacBook 13" Core(1)Duo has very very good 802.11[b] reception.
Haven't tried it with 802.11[g].
There are two issues here.
The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)
The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.
This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.
Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.
I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.
WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.
1. Yeah we'll have to see user experiences with the 802.11n Airport Extreme base station and receivers. Last I read a few months ago, in the PC magazines they have been pretty scathing in their reports on the 802.11n gear out there.
2. The standard is in a bit of a mess because it sounds like it won't be rectified for a while. Apple has taken the risk though with their pre-N gear (receivers and base station), so we'll see how the firmware updates and cross-compatibility with PC-related pre-N stuff goes.
3. It's an early-adopter kinda risk, or for that matter, minimal risk for early adopters willing to have a total Apple solution, which is what Apple prefers and is banking on. 802.11n Core2Duos, 802.11n AppleTV, 802.11n Airport Extreme Base Station. Somewhere in there a ethernet connection between the Base Station and a Mac Mini with external RAID1 FW400 for a nice little NetworkAreaStorage deal. For those that go full on with their home networking. MMmmm... EM radiation.... aw yeahhhhhhh.
I don't think the Core(1)Duo [Yonah] models have 802.11n, AFAIK.
Only the Core2Duos, as listed on http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/
BTW Yeah my MacBook 13" Core(1)Duo has very very good 802.11[b] reception.
Haven't tried it with 802.11[g].
Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple
The first one deals with this fee, now set at $1.99.
Here is the deal.
Apple is telling the truth, and fudging at the same time.
According to The Article:
Apple Gets a Bruise by Blaming A $1.99 Fee on Accounting Rules
I'll quote some from the article.
"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, managing director of research at Glass Lewis & Co. and a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"So, why would Apple charge customers if it didn't have to? The company felt it had no choice, based on the accounting outcome that would have resulted had it given the product away, said a person familiar with the matter. In that sense, even if the accounting rules didn't explicitly say such a charge was necessary, that was the result, this person said..."
"Still, Apple's language surprised officials who oversee accounting rules. "Accounting doesn't require any charge for anything," says Edward Trott, a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes the accounting rules. "No, GAAP doesn't tell you to do anything. You need to work out your transaction with your customer, and GAAP will tell you how to reflect your transaction with that customer."
"The accounting rules in this case are analogous, accounting experts say, to income-tax rules affecting the sale of stock. If an investor sells shares less than a year year after buying, gains are taxed at personal income-tax rates that can range as high as 35%. If the investor sells after holding the stock for more than a year, gains are taxed at the capital-gains rate of 15%.
The income-tax rules dictate the amount of tax to be paid, but they don't tell the person when, or whether, to sell."
This is interesting. What is being said, is that Apple gains financially, as far as taxes are concerned, by charging this fee.
It also says (not directly, but by explaining what the rules are) that there is no penalty by NOT charging this fee, just no tax advantage.
Apple therefore, does NOT have to charge this fee. They are doing it because they want to.
I wouldn't mind that, being a stockholder, and all, but I would prefer they "come clean" , and explain WHY they are doing this, rather than making it sound as though they HAVE to.
The other article,
How Expensing for Options Throws Analysts Off Course
is very interesting, and explains why so many analysts are not in ageeement, something we have commented upon here many times.
I won't get into it unless there is interest here, or it's thought I should bring it up somewhere else.
It would be nice if the WSJ website was not paid subscription, or I would simply post links. As it is, sometimes you can read the first couple of lines, whic isnt useful, except to prove to those few natural skeptics here that the article really does exist online as well. But, I didn't look.
Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.
Cubit, I'd have to say JeffDM does have a bit of a point. But essentially, you should be able to take your cable modem and then take an ethernet out from the cable modem into your wireless base station. From here on out it's a lot of experimenting and mucking around and all that.
I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.
If you are currently accessing your cable Internet via cable modem, with an ethernet connection from the cable modem into your computer, then there is a very very high probability you can go ahead and hook up the cable modem ethernet out into a wireless router... The cable company would have to be very very evil if it asked for extra to somehow "enable" this part of things.
That said, as far as I understand, you get cable coming in, one part obviously goes to set-top-box for TV. You *will* need a "broadband cable modem" (if you don't already have one) for the Internet access side of things. Said "broadband cable modem" should have a simple Ethernet out. If it only has a USB connection, that's nasty, you need to find another broadband provider.
Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.
Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended).....
There are two good articles in Sat. WSJ, on the same page. Both are relevant to Apple.
The first one deals with this fee, now set at $1.99.
Here is the deal.
Apple is telling the truth, and fudging at the same time.
etc etc.
Both are excellent articles. And, Lynn Turner's comment is right on: GAAP does not require Apple to charge squat.
I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.
It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.
Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended).....
I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.
I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.
It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.
I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.
I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.
I don't use cable, so I don't know what you might have. But my Covad DSL provider first gave me a Zyzel gateway (DSL modem + router), then after it died, two years later, a Netopia gateway, which I use. The Netopia comes with wireless, as well as the four 10/100 outputs. Just for the hell of it I set up the wireless, with both encryption methods, as they are allowed.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Wireless works the same way wired Ethernet does, except for the need for encryption. My main network includes a Linksys EG008W gigabit 8 port workgroup switch. That gets plugged into one of the 10/100 ports on the Netopia.The main netwoek works at Gigabit, while pulling the 6 Mb/s DSL from the Netopia router. A laptop can pull from the wireless directly from the Netopia, as can, possibly later, an iPhone.
I've used Linksys over the years, and haven't had any problems.
I don't use cable, so I don't know what you might have. But my Covad DSL provider first gave me a Zyzel gateway (DSL modem + router), then after it died, two years later, a Netopia gateway, which I use. The Netopia comes with wireless, as well as the four 10/100 outputs. Just for the hell of it I set up the wireless, with both encryption methods, as they are allowed.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Wireless works the same way wired Ethernet does, except for the need for encryption. My main network includes a Linksys EG008W gigabit 8 port workgroup switch. That gets plugged into one of the 10/100 ports on the Netopia.The main netwoek works at Gigabit, while pulling the 6 Mb/s DSL from the Netopia router. A laptop can pull from the wireless directly from the Netopia, as can, possibly later, an iPhone.
I've used Linksys over the years, and haven't had any problems.
The encryption was much of the problem. The Linksys cable modem was also either slow or faulty in getting DHCP information from the ISP. The access point was also slow or faulty in handing out DHCP information to the same brand wireless card. Hooking up my MBP directly to the cable modem actually fetched the DHCP properly, but the access point could not do the same reliably, even using the same Ethernet cable.
The access point also required a firmware update to work properly. I was able to use Linksys' access point with my MBP with encryption just fine. I think my Buffalo wireless adapter worked properly too, but using the Linksys Cardbus module and the Linksys setup software for XP, it would often not accept the same encryption key.
I also have a Linksys gigabit switch that would lock up on occasion, requiring a reset. Power level changes from a UPS because of power interruptions had caused it to lock up and stall the network, when no other device connected to the same UPS had a problem. I reverted to a hand-me-down Asante 10/100 managed switch which has performed flawlessly since.