Apr 12th 2011 1:08AM Translation: "We are pooping our pants."
Apr 8th 2011 12:50PM The variable delay between ipads would seem to indicate that the application doesn't use multicast which might be fine except a large deployment like this is probably going to wreck any other applications on the WLAN while it's happening -- plus it probably couldn't handle operating in something like a school setting when you'd potentially have a few hundred users on it.
That being said, it's really not very surprising that it doesn't use multicast -- it's really really difficult to set up multicast properly in a wireless network, particularly a larger one and there are only a few vendors that really get it right. The return on the application developer supporting multicast is probably not there.
Does ARD do multicast in this type of application? I know there is no iPad viewer; maybe this is why...
Feb 16th 2011 9:06PM It's correct that you could likely not bring an antitrust suit against Apple for their store; however, I think some of the major content houses that are getting the raw deal here have a pretty good basis to bring an extortion case.
However, there is one problem here, and I think the fact that Rhapsody is the only one making a lot of noise about this is telling -- the big players here are well known and already have apps; I think it's very likely that Apple have already gone to at least Amazon and Netflix and worked out some secret deals. Apple knows damn well Kindle and Netflix are driving iPad sales, and they also know there's not a chance in hell they are going to start forking over 30% of their revenue for the privilege of having an iOS app -- they don't have the margin.
Of course there is an alternative approach that might work: make the product slightly different. Let's say you are Amazon or Netflix -- if you buy a book or sign up for a subscription in the iOS app, you are limited to using the content on iOS. In fact, if Apple gives customers the option of not sharing their info with the publisher, how are they supposed to deliver anything to you outside of the app anyway? So would you rather buy a $7.99 netflix subscription you can only watch on iOS or would you rather pay $7.99 for one you can stream on your Laptop and Console too? Publishers can't link to the out-of-app subscription system, but I don't see anything against saying "This purchase will only allow you to access this content from your iPhone. Purchases made through our website can be accessed on all of your devices and computers."
Jan 12th 2011 7:39PM I really despise the "home security" industry in the US. Have you ever tried to shop for an alarm for your house? It's impossible. Everyone just advertises how great their products are, but won't tell you how much they cost or what they are until you cough up your name and let someone go through your house. It's totally insane. And ultimately the equipment they quote is essentially exactly the same. I think it's actually worse than trying to buy enterprise software. It's completely screwed up.
So I've heard some pretty good stuff about Alarm.com; apparently their iPhone app is pretty good; their system works over cellular, and they offer video and home automation. There are enough happy customers that I want to look into it. Only I can't because to learn even the first thing about it I have to key my name into a CRM system that will most likely lock me into a local (but I may not even be that lucky) vendor whom I may or may not want to deal with. According to legend, they used to offer a $100 self-install starter kit. That is probably not the product I'm interested in, but the fact that it has now gone missing doesn't bode well. They purport to do all kinds of home automation now, such as locks, lights, and HVAC, but they hide every single detail that is of any importance.
So I'm gonna go ahead and give Intamac huge points for at least trying (again) to change that; even if their software and systems are kinda crap and not all there. Maybe this is the norm for "home security" businesses in the UK, but somehow I think they're as unlucky as we Americans are.
Nov 17th 2010 6:52PM The thing is that all "Airprint" is is a simple bonjour/zeroconf advertisement that points to your (already existing) CUPS queue (if you have shared a printer on your mac anyway). The only difference to any existing advertisement that CUPS already does is the subtype must be _universal._sub._ipp._tcp instead of just _sub._ipp._tcp and there must be a URF record (even though the pdl doesn't have to indicate support for image/urf)
It doesn't seem anything on iOS uses URF (yet) so it doesn't seem to be a big deal if CUPS doesnt have a filter for it. Either way, It took me about 5 minutes to set up an advertisement from avahi on a linux box to "airprint enable" every printer on the network where I work, and yeah, they all work great.
Nov 15th 2010 2:45PM All you need to set up your own "Airprint server" is CUPS and avahi. I deployed a small linux VM to do this at work on Friday. It takes about 15 minutes, tops.
Nov 9th 2010 9:44AM Are you kidding me? This is actually rather cool. As an easy and very cheap way to view stereo images or stereo video it will probably do rather well, particularly since it seems it just splits left/right eye images down the middle of the display, so there is no barrier to creating content for it.
The ViewMaster products still sell pretty well even today.
Jul 9th 2010 2:04PM How about the iPod nano IS the remote for the new apple TV/mac Mini
Mar 17th 2010 2:39PM The application fee for a gTLD is a non refundable $185,000. Per the ICANN documentation about it, it's unlikely that .cannon will be accepted at all. I think by throwing a lot of PR behind their application, they hope to turn the decision in their favor. In my own opinion I think accepting a .cannon gTLD would be terrible precedent for ICANN and sincerely hope they reject the application and send Canon a thank you for the cash.
Honestly, I'm not really sure if any company currently has the kind of outlay or diverse service offerings that might actually benefit from having their own gTLD; perhaps Google; maybe some Tier 1 SP networks would benefit; it's tough to say; nobody has really made a good use case.
Dec 28th 2009 5:51PM I have one and really like it. I hate the little 2 prong flip out deal and I don't much like the tangled mess that you get from wrapping the computer-side cord around the built in clips either. Sure, it's a more bulky but it still fits in my laptop bag fine and keeps the cords managed better than the hand-coiled mess from before.