What is the point of an iTunes server?

I have an iTunes server running on a NAS drive (Synology), but since I cannot connect my iPad or Apple TV to it I am wondering what on earth is the point in it?
I understand that I can connect my PC to the iTunes server, but as I have no need to I've not even tried. From my PC I can just point iTunes at the directory on the NAS drive where the music, videos, etc, is stored, so there really is no need to connect iTunes on my PC to the iTunes server. However, I really want to access all my content from my iPad and Apple TV, but Apple just doesn't seem to want to allow that.
The only option Apple provide is Home Sharing, but that means that I have turn my PC on and leave it on just to access content stored on the NAS drive, which is ridiculous. If I have to tur my PC on to access the content on my NAS drive then I might as well use m PC to access it, so why have I bought an iPad and Apple TV?
It appears that I have been very naive in assuming that Apple devices would be able to connect to an Apple iTunes server. And I am wondering what on earth is the point in having an iTunes Server?
Is there anyone out there who agrees? Or are there people out there successfully using an iTunes Server on anything other than a Mac or PC?

Hi Rob
Don't worry, you posted your question in exactly the right place. You experience is almost exactly the same as mine and you are asking the exact same question. And as you may have already gathered from this thread, there appears to be o point whatsoever in the iTunes server.
The approach I have taken is to change the setting in iTunes on my laptop to point directly to the folder on my NAS drive where I store all my music. Note that this is different to just adding a folder to the library. By doing this it means that the iTunes folder where iTunes stores it's database, apps, music, videos, etc will be on the NAS instead of on my local PC.
The downside to tis approach is that everything is stored on the NAS and not my laptop, but the upside to this is that everything is stored on the NAS and not my laptop ;)
However, to access your music and videos on apple devices through the native apps you still need to synchronise via iTunes so it will copy the files to your device. This of course means that you cannot access all your music/videos from your iPad/iPhone if you have a large volume of media as it will not all fit.
The only way to access all your media from your ipad/iPhone is to use non-Apple apps. For example my NAS drive comes with an app that plays music and will access it all directly from the NAS. And I'm sure here are a number of third party apps that will do the same.
So basically, my advice to you is to ignore the iTunes server, it is a complete waste and I feel sorry for the developers who built it, and third party companies such as those selling these NAS drives should stop using it as a marketing tool for their own products as it also reflects badly on them (in my opinion anyway).
I know it's not the response you wanted, but hopefully it's of some use to you.
Regards
Mark

Similar Messages

What is the point of icloud backup, when you have to plug your iphone into itunes to restore it anyway?

ok im confused now.. What is the point of backing up and restoring your iphone with icloud, when to restore your iphone you have to plug it into itunes anyway? you might as well just restore it from there then shouldnt you?

when to restore your iphone you have to plug it into itunes anyway?
But you don't. You can restore your phone data direct from iCloud wirelessly without a computer.

What's the point of the x-serve?

what's the point of the x-serve?
of rack mounted computers in general?
Do buyers of rack equipment keep it as long as possible?
I ask that because i wonder how easy it is to sell rack equipment.
Seems easier to rejuvenate a computer parc if its composed of macpros rather than x-serves.
is it only to save space?
do the x-serves do things that the macpro can't?
(or the G5 x-serve than the G5 towers)

The XServe really doesn't do anything that a Mac Pro cannot. It is more about robustness and a useable design.
Except for dual, redundant power supplies and hot-swappable drives - standard on the XServe, not available on the Mac Pro.
It's main raison d'etre, though, is its form factor. If you run a large network of, say, 200 servers you could, power permitting, fit them in about 100 square feet of datacenter space (40 servers per rack for 5 racks, @ 20 sq ft per rack), compared to 660 sq feet to house the same number of Mac Pros.
Since datacenter space is charged by the square foot, that makes a huge difference.

What is the point of syncing apps with iTunes?

I have an iPad & iPhone.
In older itunes the updates on one device would sync to itunes. but now what is the point of apps in itunes other than to waste space? if i backup a device, all apps seem to come from the internet. if i update then don't sync to itunes on pc so i end up download all updates 3 times (ipad/iphone/itunes).
Should I just delete all apps from itunes and same space both on hdd and on network (since i backup my itunes folder).
note that I have 300mbps unlimited internet.

Is the device backing up to iTunes on the computer or iCloud?
If backing up to iTunes on the computer, any content purchased from iTunes (apps, media, podcast, etc) will transfer during the backup/sync process.
If backing up to iCloud, content does not transfer automatically.
The purpose is to have a local backup of content. This is beneficial in the event that content is removed from iTunes and the user wants to reinstall or restore the device.

What is the point of the Quicktime Player? Everything I click on in the player window prompts me to download iTunes.

What is the point of the Quicktime Player? Everything I click on in the player window prompts me to download iTunes.

Aaargh!! Me too - it's so annoying! Firefox has a downloads window as well - I just don't see the point of it. I didn't like it in Tiger either.
As a way to see the progress of downloads, it's fine, but it should at least close when all the downloads are finished, and completed downloads should not display.
Ideally it should look & work exactly like the Copy window in Finder - the one that comes up when you are copying or moving a large file or number of files from one folder to another.
Is there a hack that will make it work like that?

JWSDP and J2EE Integration: Doesn't work. What's the point?

My problems involve the integration of JWSDP and J2EE as described in these two documents:
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/WebServices/wsj2ee/
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/documentation/windows_guide.html
It looks like a long one, but it�s really not that bad. All comments are appreciated.
I�ve numbered each line-paragraph-section for easy reference later.
(1) My ultimate goal is to setup a website that displays data from a database. I will use Java, Apache, Oracle, and whatever else I need to create a website that uses servlets, JavaServer Pages (JSP), and JDBC.
(2) I�ve got four Pentium III computers:
1. Windows 2000 Server to be the web server (MyWebServer, IP = 10.10.1.1).
2. Windows 2000 Professional to be the database server (MyDatabaseServer, IP = 10.10.1.2).
3. Windows 2000 Professional that I use to develop and test (MyDeveloperPC, IP = 10.10.1.3).
4. Windows 2000 Professional that I use as a client to connect to the website (MyClientPC, IP = 10.10.1.4).
(3) On MyWebServer I installed the following:
Java 2 Standard Edition (J2SE)
Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE)
Java Web Services Developer Pack (JWSDP)
The JWSDP tutorial
Apache HTTP Server
(4) The files I downloaded and installed are as follows:
j2sdk-1_4_0-rc-win.exe
j2sdkee-1_3_1-win.exe
jwsdp-1_0-ea1-win.exe
jwsdp-1_0-ea1_01-tutorial.zip
apache_1.3.23-win32-x86-no_src.exe
(5) After installing these products, I set the environment variables as follows:
JAVA_HOME = c:\j2se
J2EE_HOME = c:\j2ee
JWSDP_HOME = c:\jwsdp
Path = c:\j2se\bin;c:\j2ee\bin;c:\jwsdp\bin; [and other previous statements]
(6) I checked to see that Apache is running as a service. It is.
On MyWebServer I start Tomcat and J2EE. Both start properly and are operating simultaneously.
(7) From MyClientPC I open Internet Explorer and in the address box I type:
http://10.10.1.1
This displays the page c:\ApacheHTTP\apache\htdocs\index.html.en (The Apache default server installation page.)
(8) I then enter this address in IE:
http://10.10.1.1:8080
This displays the page c:\jwsdp\webapps\root\index.html (The default JWSDP page).
(9) I then enter this address in IE:
http://10.10.1.1:8000
This displays the page c:\j2ee\public_html\index.html (The J2EE 1.3 Default Home Page).
(10) So far so good. Now I want to test JWSDP as a container for JSP pages.
(11) I use ant to build the converter app found in the tutorial examples (in folder c:\jwsdp\�\tutorial\examples\gs). I then deploy the converter app to the c:\jwsdp\webapps\gs folder.
(12) From MyClientPC I open Internet Explorer and in the address box I type:
http://10.10.1.1:8080/gs
The converter app works perfectly.
(13) To eliminate the need to enter the port number, I create a link from the Apache default server installation page to the converter app. From MyClientPC and enter this address into IE:
http://10.10.1.1
I then click on the link to the converter app and it works perfectly.
(14) Question: Is this the best way to display JSP pages without having to enter the port number?
(15) Now it�s time to integrate JWSDP and J2EE as described in these two documents:
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/WebServices/wsj2ee/
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/documentation/windows_guide.html
(16) After I complete this integration I cannot start both Tomcat and J2EE at the same time. This makes sense because they both share port 8080.
I start Tomcat.
(17) From MyClientPC and use Internet Explorer to test the various relevant addresses. Everything works the same as it did before except this one:
http://10.10.1.1:8000
The page cannot be displayed. The J2EE default home page is not displayed, which makes sense because the J2EE port is no longer 8000; it has been changed to 8080.
(18) Now I shutdown Tomcat and start J2EE.
From MyClientPC and use Internet Explorer to test the various relevant addresses:
(19) http://10.10.1.1:8080
Displays the JWSDP default home page.
(20) http://10.10.1.1:8080/gs
The page cannot be displayed. The converter app no longer works.
(21) From MyWebServer and use Internet Explorer to test localhost:
http://localhost:8080
This displays the J2EE default home page.
(22) Question: Why does localhost give me a different page than the IP address?
(23) Question: What was the point of integrating JWSDP and J2EE?
(24) I want to get the converter app working, so I create a .war file and attempt to add it to the J2EE deploytool (see the two integration documents listed above at section 15.) I create the .war file following the instructions in the JWSDP tutorial:
http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/ea1/tutorial/doc/WebApp3.html#64606
(25) I change to the c:\jwsdp\�\tutorial\examples\gs\build folder.
I then type:
jar cvf converter.war .
A .war file is created.
(26) I open the deploytool: File, New, Application, and I name it �converter�.
I attempt to add the .war file: File, Add to Application, Web WAR.
(27) When I attempt to add the converter.war file I get this error:
�converter.war does not appear to be a valid web JAR.�
I tried a few different attempts, all with the same result. I�m stuck.
(28) I ask again, What was the point of integrating JWSDP and J2EE?
(29) If this is the preferred configuration, how do I display my JSP pages like the converter app?
Please help!!!

The JWSDP tutorial says to be in the �build� folder of the example when issuing the jar command to create the .war file. The build folder is created when I run the �ant build� command.
Attempt 1 from the command prompt in folder c:\jwsdp\tutorial\examples\gs\build>
I typed this command:
jar cvf c:\jaxmservices\converter.war .
In this case I directed the .war file to be placed in a different folder as you suggested. Here�s the output:
added manifest
adding: index.jsp(in = 921) (out= 525)(deflated 42%)
adding: WEB-INF/(in = 0) (out= 0)(stored 0%)
adding: WEB-INF/classes/(in = 0) (out= 0)(stored 0%)
adding: WEB-INF/classes/Converter.class(in = 582) (out= 358)(deflated 38%)
Didn�t work. Same error as before.
Attempt 2 from the same folder:
I typed this command as you suggested (I tried it with and without the final dot):
jar tvf converter.war
Here is the output:
java.io.FileNotFoundException: converter.war (The system cannot find the file specified)
at java.io.FileInputStream.open(Native Method)
at java.io.FileInputStream.<init>(FileInputStream.java:103)
at java.io.FileInputStream.<init>(FileInputStream.java:66)
at sun.tools.jar.Main.run(Main.java:185)
at sun.tools.jar.Main.main(Main.java:904)
I tried a few other variations on these attempts with no luck. I�m stuck.
I�m attempting to create a .war file out of two files: index.jsp and converter.class.
Now that I�ve integrated JWSDP and J2EE, is there some other way that I can run the converter app instead of a .war file and the deploytool? In other words, if I go back to using ant to build and deploy converter, where would I deploy it so that it will work with J2EE?
By the way, it doesn�t have to be converter. I�d be happy if I could get any JSP page to work in J2EE after the integration.
Forever grateful,
Logan

Backed up ipod to the cloud (12/25 11am) and then updated. Music is gone and the back up is not restoring?! why? What's the point of the cloud if nothing is there?

Ipod has been playing music in my car the past two years. new computer this year and new email address. Backed up to cloud. change ID on itunes. Music on my ipod disappeared. Shouldn't it be on the cloud somewhere?! What's the point of this cloud? And is it b/c I can't seem to change my icloud ID to the new one on my ipod settings?

Music is not stored in your personal iCloud account, or in your device backup. Music purchased from the iTunes store is in available for redownload as explained here: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2519. Music from other sources such as your CDs should be in your iTunes library on your computer and can be synced back to your iPod from there.
To change the iCloud account on your device you have to delete the exsting account, then sign back into the new ID.

What is the Point of Active Directory/LDAP Specification?

My college threw an interesting curve ball today and I couldn't give him a good enough answer. The question was simple 'What is the point of active directory'. Now I don't have a lot of exposure to active directory, but I thought I could easily answer. My argument was; If you have a group of objects its easy to look up attributes for those objects using active directory. For example, if you have a group in AD and you want to verify the users of that group you simply look up the member attribute of that group. However he argued, rightly so, that you can do that with a table in a database, why do that in AD. I couldn't give him a good enough answer and now I'm curious. Given the above example, why use AD over a database?
To me AD is a way to manage a set of resources, whatever they are, by mapping them to objects that have however many attributes. But we could do that in a database, whats the point of AD? Why do you use AD?

I come from a primarily database centric background. Just like life experience, it casts a certain perspective on problems. Database people solve things with databases. Directory people solve things with directories. Everyone has their perspective. It's not really about who's right and who's wrong. It's about perspective because people are most likely to go with what's familiar when given a problem. It's easy to have this conversation in a educational environment but when you're on the job it's about turf, schedules and careers. My latest job (in which this debate comes up a lot) has been about directories which has been a very enlightening experience because I've been given a gift of perspective. I can put on the directory hat and look at it from another angle.
To get back to your professor's question. The answer is easy. LDAP (AD or other) is an application above a database. It has a data store behind it, in most cases we can just assume this is a database. So, in short, it's apples to oranges. But if we insist on comparing which makes the better juice, let's look at how we'd make a database like a directory. We could create a data model with an attributes table, an entries table and so on. We can deconstruct what LDAP data structures really are and implement each type as a table with FK/PK relationships and so on. It's sure to work because there are already so many products on the market doing this very thing. But think about the effort now. How are you going to add new users? A front-end? Stored procedures? Scripts? How are you going to keep someone from seeing things they shouldn't? You have to insert an object into all the right tables to ensure that your data is consistent and valid. In a pure database, you're trying to create ACLs on database rows. Now you're writing a full featured application with a lot of complexity. Given enough directory features, the database isn't going to be able to do everything without an external application.
What is the point of LDAP? It's got hierarchy, ACLs, group of unique names functionality and things that are a layer of abstraction above the data store. I love databases but if you start designing out a directory server from scratch you'll realize it's far beyond comparing a user.ldif to a row in a user table. They are similar in appearance but different types of software.
Edited by: milkfilk on Dec 16, 2008 11:48 AM
Edited by: milkfilk on Dec 16, 2008 11:54 AM

What's the point in icluding?

Hello people,
I'm wondering: what's the point in including code in a JSP using the
<%@include...%> directive if I must "touch" every single page that is including it if I want the modified verion of the included page to be reloaded by the server?!
Is there a way around this?
I know that including with <jsp:include.../> will have the server reload the included page if it has been modified.
But if I use this type of include, variables defined and intialized in the included page won't be visible by the parent page and that doesn't help me at all (or am I mistaking on this one? please tell me).
Thanks a lot for any help,
svevo.

Hi guys, thanks for answering! :)
Still though what I'm reading here doesn't solve my problem:
using
<jsp:include page="myinclude.jsp" flush="true" />
doesn't let objects and/or variables in the including page to be visible in the included page and viceversa and that's a problem for the webapp I'm developing.
On the other hand files included with
<%@include file="myinclude.jsp"%>
are not reloaded unless the including page is reloaded as well (and that's a pain and makes including code this way basicly worthless IMHO).
What I need is a way to include code that will be able to use objects and variable declared and initialized in the including page and that we'll reload each time it is changed without having to track each single page using the included code and modify that as well so that is realoded by the server. Nor I can reload tomcat.
So, has anybody encountered the same problem?
Has anyone found a workaround for this?
Thanks a lot! :)
svevo

What's the point of iCloud

Unless I misunderstood, I have to pay to get all my music to be pushed to all my devices (iTunes Match) and I have to buy iWork for my iPhone (even though I already have it on my Mac) in order to get those documents pushed to the cloud. (It makes more sense to stick with iWork beta!)
I feel like Apple is nickling and diming its loyal customers.
So, essentially, iCloud is useless! I thought it would be a great way to free up space on my hard drive; I could just store my documents and music in the cloud.
My question is: what is the point of iCloud? Honestly, what does it do? It just pushes stuff between your devices? I genuinely don't understand the point of it.

capaho wrote:
Julian Wright wrote:
Here we go... Yet another 'loyal' Apple customer who seems to think that because they've bought one Apple product, Apple should forever let them have new products and services for free.
The real problem here is that Apple has no long-term commitment to support anything it makes. It wasn't that long ago that MobileMe (which was not free) came into existence and now it is already being dumped in favor of iCloud, which lacks the iDisk, remote access to Time Capsules and personal websites. It's a step backwards and a disservice to those of us who were using some or all of those MobileMe features.
Apple's product cycles, both hardware and software, are too short to be of use to anyone but those who like to play. Forget about trying to run a business from Apple products these days.
That is exactly right.
In my own small home network we 7 Macs all being synced through MobileMe. Only two of these Macs can run Lion and doing so would mean no longer being able to use applications that our clients still use so it would mean loss of these clients. Not to mention the cost of replacing at least 5 of or Macs.
Then there are businesses that have dozens of Macs or sometimes even hundreds of Macs along with gigs and gigs of data that Macs running Lion can't access. So even ignoring the huge cost of replacing al these Macs with newer Macs there is still the issue of Macs running Lion not being able to run needed applications.
With MobileMe one could buy a newer Mac running Lion and it would still be able to sync with older Macs but now it is all or nothing.
At least one design shop that I do work for is now replacing their Macs with Windows machines since these computers can run older software and also be able to sync with iOS devices using iCloud. At least a dozen other places that I do business are considering doing the same thing.

What's the point of archiving to ALAC?

I did all the googling and learned pretty much all I need to know about archiving my 1000 CD collection to ALAC. And I just successfully ripped my first ever CD to ALAC.
The only question I never saw answered anywhere was whether or not there is any advantage to ALAC for archive purposes now that hard drives are so cheap.
I just bought a 2TB drive at Costco for $130.
The first CD I ripped was 693mb, per iTunes. Once I ripped it to ALAC, it was 450mb. That's a space savings of 35%.
If my average CD has 650mb of data on it ... times 1000 CDs in my collection ... that 635 gigs.
If I save 35% via ALAC, that's now 412 gigs. That (now, on a 2TB drive) is a negligible difference.
So I'm asking ... what's the point? This isn't 2004 when 200 gigs would have cost a lot of money.
I understand for playback, ALAC is cool because you've got tags and album artwork.
But for archiving a CD collection to a hard drive just for the purpose of safe storage ... is there any advantage anymore to converting the file format?
Why not just use Toast or whatever and save a bunch of disc images?

John_Neumann wrote:
Thank you, Ed2345.
Regarding your last sentence ... isn't making a new physical CD pretty much the same process whether disc image or ALAC? I understand you just drop an IMG into Toast and hit burn ... or drop an ALAC into XLD and hit burn. Or is there a step I still don't understand?
-JOHN
John,
It is not actually the same process. The burn from disc image copies the image, i.e. all contents and structure, onto the CD. The burn from ALAC (or WAV or AIFF) reconstructs the audio, creates a table of contents, adds its own gaps, and then burns that to the CD.
However, if your future intent is to use the songs in a player such as iTunes, the ALAC files will be ready to go, while the disc image will still need ripping.

What's the point of redo logs?

Why does Oracle bother writing everything to redo logs? If it's going to write data changes to the disk, why not just write them once to the data files and be done with it? What's the point of doing it twice? And if it's a redundancy thing, why not mirror the data disks?

Hemant K Chitale wrote:
How would you backup a database while it is in use ? You can't lock all the datafiles to prevent writes to them. Yet, transactions may be updating different blocks in different datafiles even as the backup is in progress. Say your backup starts with datafile 1 (or even datafiles 1,2,3,4 in parallel) at time t0. By time t5, it has copied 20% of the datafile to tape or alternate disk backup location. Along comes a transaction that updates the 100th block (somewhere within the 10-11% range) of datafile 1 and also the 60th block of datafile 5. Meanwhile, the backup continues running, already having taken a prior image of the 100th block and not being aware that the block has been changed. At time t25 it completes datafile 1 (or datafiles 1,2,3,4) and starts backing up datafile 5. Now, when it copies the 60th block of datafile 5, it (the backup utility) doesn't know that this block is inconsistent with the backup image of the 100th block of datafile 1.
Instead of 1 transaction imagine 100 or 1000 transactions occurring while the backup is running.
Surely, Oracle must be able to regenerate a consistent image of the whole database when it is restored ?
That is what the Redo stream provides. The Redo stream is written to Archivelogs so that it can be backed up -- no Archivelog file is "in flux" (particularly if you use RMAN to backup the Archivelogs as well !).
Had Oracle been merely writing to the datafiles alone, without a Redo stream, there is no way it could recreate a consistent database -- whether after Crash Recovery OR after Media Recovery.Interesting point about how redo logs facilitate backups. So what you're saying is that the redo logs help keep the data in the actual data files in a consistent state by only writing full transactions to them at a time. Presumably Oracle will either write out the redo log data to the data files before a backup or will at least prevent the redo logs from writing to the data files during a backup. I always wondered how databases got around that problem of keeping the system available for writing during a backup. I wonder how SQL Server does it.
Hemant K Chitale wrote:
Now, approach this from another angle. A database consists of 10 or 100 or 500 datafiles. You have 10 or 100 or 1000 sessions issuing COMMITs to complete their transactions, which could be of 1 row or 100 rows or 1million rows, each transaction of a different size. Should the 1000 sessions be forced to wait while Oracle writes all those updated blocks to disk in different datafiles -- how many blocks can it write in "an instant" ?
But what if Oracle manages to write much less information -- the bare minimum (called "change vectors") to re-play every transaction to a single file serially ? That would be much faster. Imagine writing to 500 datafiles concurrently, having to open the file, progess to the required block address and update the block, for each block changed in each file VERSUS writing much lesser information serially to a single file -- if the file is full, switch to another file, but keep writing serially.As to your second point, I don't really have a good enough understanding about the format of redo logs vs. the data files to follow you totally. Are you saying that it takes more time to write to the data files because you have to find the proper place in the B-Tree before you can write to it? And that doing that is slower than just opening the redo log and always appending new information to the very end? Maybe so, but it seems like all transactions having to write to a single redo log in serial would slow things down since there would be a ton of contention for one file. Whereas with the data files, you could potentially have several transactions writing to different files simultaneously (provided you hardware would support doing that). And it seems to me like a change vector would contain a lot more information than a field value, but, like I said, I'm not really familiar with the format.

What's the point of FileVault?

Of the many recent changes and updates that Lion offers, FileVault has me a little baffled. What's the point of it? Does it allow me to encrypt my files and folders with a password? If so, I haven't seen that option yet. After turning on FileVault, Lion started the process of encrypting my files (so it says) but without the option to enable a password for folders and programs, I'm not sure I understand what purpose it serves.

I use FileVault on all of my systems, which include two MacBook Pro systems (one with dual hard drives), a Mac Mini, and an XServe, and have enabled it on numerous other Macs that colleagues have used, and also enable encryption on most of my external hard drives.
You can clone your encrypted drive, though you might have troubles doing block-level clones. Once the drive is unlocked and mounted the system treats it as any other drive, and you can use Carbon Copy Cloner or another cloning tool to file-level clone your drive. The problem with cloning Lion drives with file-level cloning is you will not copy the hidden Recovery HD partiton, but this hurdle is present regardless of whether or not you have FileVault 2 enabled. However, it only takes a few more steps to restore the Recovery HD partition when cloning or restoring your system from backup (it just takes remembering to do so, since cloning is not officially supported by Apple as a backup/recovery routine).
Installing new applications and managing documents is seamless, and is the same as if you install them on any other OS X system. The encryption happens underneath the OS, so OS X, documents, and applications you use are unaware of it and work as they would on any system.
Your concerns about losing the password are good ones, but if you already set your system to use the login window instead of automatic login then there is no difference (the regular use of the login window ensures you remember your password). The same password is used to unlock the drive and then log into your account once the system is booted. The difference with login is that you will need to specify the users who are able to unlock the drive (done in the FileVault system preferences). If a user is not, then the initial login window will not show that user account, and to get to that account another user will have to log in, and then log out so the unauthorized user can access his account.
In terms of performance problems, I've not seen any in my uses (primarily office and computational analysis with programs such as Igor Pro, Matlab); however, I use SSDs in my systems so this greatly increases overall performance and results will likely be different if you are using the slower classic HDD technology.

What is the point of Apple TV anyway?

I must be missing something but I don't see the point of the Apple TV:
If one has to convert all video, presentation and other material to run on Apple TV. What is the point?
All these converted videos, etc. don't only take up time to convert but take up unnecessary disk space too. What is the point?
Surely Apple will make future versions of its DVD Player, iLife, and iWorks, especially Keynote, compatible with Apple TV so that one can stream DVD's, Keynote presentations, etc. directly to a TV via Apple TV without having to "rip" ones DVD's and convert them or convert all ones presentations into QuickTime. Otherwise, what is the point?
As for movies on iTunes tell me what proportion of the population buy their movies? Most movies are only worth watching once, if that, so most of us rent them for far less than the cost of buying. You can't rent movies for Apple TV. So, what is the point?
For teaching situations it would also make sense for Apple to make it possible to "stream" the Mac desktop, including running applications to a large screen TV to allow it to be used as teaching tool in lecture theatres, classrooms, etc. I say it again, what is the point?

If one has to convert all video, presentation and
other material to run on Apple TV. What is the
point?
One doesn't have to convert all video. A great deal of compatible MPEG-4 formatted content (including MPEG part 10, a.k.a. H.264) is available from diverse sources, including Apple's iTunes Music Store. One interesting source you may not be aware of is video podcasts. Just as audio podcasts have become popular as a distribution format for audio content, so too now is the video version. An easy way to sample what is available is through the "Apple TV Showcase," accessible from the Podcast section of iTunes Music Store.
All these converted videos, etc. don't only take up
time to convert but take up unnecessary disk space
too. What is the point?
Nothing says you have to keep multiple versions of this content on your hard drive(s). In fact, H.264 is the current state of the art in video compression, offering higher quality vs. file size than any other codec. Most people find that even for HD content up to 720p24, Apple TV's 5 Mbps limit produces either no visible compromise or so little that the file space saved is well worth the tradeoff. Moreover, the number of standard DVD's (which use MPEG-2 compression) that contain content that can't be re-compressed in H.264 at <5 Mbps with no losses at all are few & far between.
<div class="jive-quote">Surely Apple will make future versions of its DVD
Player, iLife, and iWorks, especially Keynote,
compatible with Apple TV so that one can stream
DVD's, Keynote presentations, etc. directly to a TV
via Apple TV without having to "rip" ones DVD's and
convert them or convert all ones presentations into
QuickTime. Otherwise, what is the point?
Only Apple can say what Apple will do, but remember that there are a number of issues involved here, not the least of which is DRM & the legality of providing software that defeats protection schemes, that may prevent it from doing what consumers would like it to do.
As for movies on iTunes tell me what proportion of
the population buy their movies? Most movies are only
worth watching once, if that, so most of us rent them
for far less than the cost of buying. You can't rent
movies for Apple TV. So, what is the point?
Not that long ago, most industry pundits thought the consumer market for buying commercial releases of movies or TV shows was insignificant -- that for instance consumers would prefer to see movies in theaters & have no interest in buying them afterwards, or that they would only be interested in rentals. I don't know if you have noticed, but they were wrong ... to the tune of billions of dollars in revenue per year that often exceed the revenue from theatrical releases.
Some of these same pundits more recently predicted that selling TV shows by the episode, particularly at less than HD resolution, would have no marketing potential -- after all, why buy something you could watch or record for free? Once again, they were wrong. It turns out that some people just like collecting episodes, others are eager to buy a missed episode of a favored show, still others are willing to pay for selected cable content but not for cable TV, & so on.
At the same time, bricks & mortar rental chains like Blockbuster (the world's largest) have seen profits plummet, prompting ever greater reliance on other products, including in-store sales & their own online services, still oriented toward rentals. Other retail giants like Wal-Mart have tried online rental services, too. So far, all these rental-oriented services have yet to exceed "also ran" status compared to Apple's success.
Put simply, the point is renting is becoming less popular & ownership --particularly when it is comparatively easy & cheap -- more popular.
For teaching situations it would also make sense for
Apple to make it possible to "stream" the Mac
desktop, including running applications to a large
screen TV to allow it to be used as teaching tool in
lecture theatres, classrooms, etc. I say it again,
what is the point?
The point here is that products that do this already exist, but the market for them is very limited compared to the one the much cheaper Apple TV targets.
Put another way, what "makes sense" to consumers (the fabled $100 laptop, for example) doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense in commercial terms, no matter how badly people want it or how well it would sell.
iMac G5/2.0 GHz 17" ALS (Rev B) Mac OS X (10.4.9) 1.5 GB, Kensington Trackball

I have recently purchased the highest storage but was unable to backup my phone via icloud, the button on my mphone to backup on icloud is grey out, anyone knows how to resolve the problem? What's the point of purchasing the biggest storage?

i have recently purchased the highest storage but was unable to backup my phone via icloud, the button on my iphone to backup on icloud is grey out, anyone knows how to resolve the problem? What's the point of purchasing the biggest storage?

First check that your device is correctly connected to the wifi/internet (settings > wifi)
If your back up continually fails, you might try turning off back up on your mobile device (settings > iCloud > storage & backup) and then deleting the backup file from iCloud by swiping the backup file on the mobile device (settings > iCloud > storage & backup > manage…) and then turning back up on again.
If this doesn't help, try turning off some items for back up in a pattern to try to establish if your problem is being caused by specific data on your device.
Being able to back up to the cloud can be very useful, especially if you don't have access to a computer or have infrequent access to one, however unless you specifically need to use iCloud for back up, you will find backing up to iTunes significantly more convenient and possibly more reliable.
More about iCloud v iTunes Back Up

What is the point of an iTunes server?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for