Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 03:22 AM
Nokia will according to a swedish site (http://mobil.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200609/18/20060918085929_MOB699/20060918085929_MOB699.dbp.asp) will release their first true GPS cellphone (integrated GPS reciever) within two weeks.
If Apple want to enter the cellphone market they better get going...
If Apple want to enter the cellphone market they better get going...
cirus
Apr 29, 09:53 PM
Apple's market share is growing but the fact that they supposedly (according to other posts) sell 90% of the computers that cost more than $1000 indicates that they are never going to really own the market. If they want to achieve true market dominance they need to lower their prices to attract the "I ain't paying over $800 for a fricking computer" crowd (the vast majority of people). Until they make their products affordable to the majority, they will never have a majority of the market share. Windows will always be around unless they make their products so that everyone can buy one.
They can still make record profits though.
However, if you exclude revenue that did not come from computers (ipods, itunes, etc.) and only look at products that are directly comparable (both companies sell a similar product) Microsoft has decidedly more revenue. For example there are two stores: Store 1 (pharmacy and other things including non perishable food) and Store 2 (food only). Only a small portion of store 1 's revenue comes from food. Store 1 is bigger than store 2 but it would be wrong to assume that store 1 is a bigger player in the food market as only a small portion of its revenue comes from food. It actually has less market penetration than store 2.
They can still make record profits though.
However, if you exclude revenue that did not come from computers (ipods, itunes, etc.) and only look at products that are directly comparable (both companies sell a similar product) Microsoft has decidedly more revenue. For example there are two stores: Store 1 (pharmacy and other things including non perishable food) and Store 2 (food only). Only a small portion of store 1 's revenue comes from food. Store 1 is bigger than store 2 but it would be wrong to assume that store 1 is a bigger player in the food market as only a small portion of its revenue comes from food. It actually has less market penetration than store 2.
XArt@justinks.c
Sep 13, 08:32 AM
Has any one tested any games on the 5G iPods after updating to 1.2
or is it only 5.5G iPods.
or is it only 5.5G iPods.
Piggie
Apr 22, 11:24 AM
You don't own anything you download from the iTunes store now. You hold a license and are allowed to play or view it, but you do not own it.
Well no, not in the true sense of the word, but you do have the data and can use the data elsewhere.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
Well no, not in the true sense of the word, but you do have the data and can use the data elsewhere.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
shawnce
Aug 23, 07:43 PM
Yes!
What if at this point Creative can sue Microsoft and others for infringing on "their" patents with the backing of Apple!?
In essence Creative can stay alive selling a few MP3 players, sound cards, and iPod accessories. But they can also sue on demand anybody who tries to use a similar interface (read: everybody). Then Apple jumps in and says: "Hey, we paid. So-and-so should too."
It would also force future and current competitors to try to find another interface, which Apple believes won't work as well.
Apple plays chess very well. This may end up being a very slick move!
Exactly. Apple is playing this to their advantage and not giving others the ability to stick it to them (license with Creative lending weight to Creative's claim) while they fought this thing.
wow.....$100 million. yikes :eek:
Apple has over 9 billion in cash currently... this really is a non-issue in terms of cash outlay.
If you compare it to the risk it removes from a product that makes them billions in a year and the fact it makes it harder for others to duplicate the UI (can use Creative against them) you quickly see it really is a win for Apple.
What if at this point Creative can sue Microsoft and others for infringing on "their" patents with the backing of Apple!?
In essence Creative can stay alive selling a few MP3 players, sound cards, and iPod accessories. But they can also sue on demand anybody who tries to use a similar interface (read: everybody). Then Apple jumps in and says: "Hey, we paid. So-and-so should too."
It would also force future and current competitors to try to find another interface, which Apple believes won't work as well.
Apple plays chess very well. This may end up being a very slick move!
Exactly. Apple is playing this to their advantage and not giving others the ability to stick it to them (license with Creative lending weight to Creative's claim) while they fought this thing.
wow.....$100 million. yikes :eek:
Apple has over 9 billion in cash currently... this really is a non-issue in terms of cash outlay.
If you compare it to the risk it removes from a product that makes them billions in a year and the fact it makes it harder for others to duplicate the UI (can use Creative against them) you quickly see it really is a win for Apple.
zap2
Apr 11, 10:22 AM
The point I was trying to make is that high commuting costs means people have to make tough choices about their discretionary spending.
I agree with that, but I fail to see how you have the wrong priorities like KingYaba suggested.
Gas is a much bigger drain then iPhones on a families monthly bills. So dealing with gas costs(moving closer, buying a smaller car, driving less, etc) is a much easier way to saving money the canceling something small like the 20 dollar data plan from the first iPhone.
I agree with that, but I fail to see how you have the wrong priorities like KingYaba suggested.
Gas is a much bigger drain then iPhones on a families monthly bills. So dealing with gas costs(moving closer, buying a smaller car, driving less, etc) is a much easier way to saving money the canceling something small like the 20 dollar data plan from the first iPhone.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 11, 08:47 AM
i dont know much about this, but does this mean i can stream to my ps3 now?
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 26, 04:43 PM
You sound like a pain in the ass to have as a customer.
That's pretty unfair - he said he called to get a bill fixed. What is he supposed to do, give as much of his money to the cell phone company as they see fit?
If your job is dealing with cranky customers and don't much care for it you'll be much happier with a different job, trust me.
That's pretty unfair - he said he called to get a bill fixed. What is he supposed to do, give as much of his money to the cell phone company as they see fit?
If your job is dealing with cranky customers and don't much care for it you'll be much happier with a different job, trust me.
hvfsl
Apr 19, 08:16 AM
But then they'd have been hammered with 2 law-suits, and then lost their 2nd biggest customer. Thats financial suicide, Apple would find someone else for parts.
Plus other companies would be less likely to do business with Samsung if they suddenly stopped shipments to a company they had a disagreement with.
Plus other companies would be less likely to do business with Samsung if they suddenly stopped shipments to a company they had a disagreement with.
BuddyTronic
Nov 17, 01:11 AM
Well, I�ve dismissed most of the other complaints. But this is Rogue Amoeba. Phil Schiller needs to get involved with this immediately � completely unacceptable. They are one of the premier Mac shareware developers.
Indeed, I hope Apple listens and apologizes etc. to get Rogue Amoeba back.
Come on Apple!
Indeed, I hope Apple listens and apologizes etc. to get Rogue Amoeba back.
Come on Apple!
goodcow
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
The problem with stolen Apple products would be no Applecare.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
snack
Sep 10, 05:10 AM
Kentsfield is Intel's next revision of their "Core" processors which was originally scheduled to be released in the 1st Quarter of 2007. According to the article, it is now planned for late 2006 availability.
Uh, you guys reported this part (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060720090504.shtml) some time ago.
Uh, you guys reported this part (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060720090504.shtml) some time ago.
happylittlemac
Apr 30, 04:35 PM
Sandy Bridge iMac's sound great, but I'm still waiting for any rumors about the Mac Mini before deciding where to put my cash down.
JH89
May 3, 10:54 AM
What do people prefer? I've heard quite bad things about the Magic Mouse, the majority of people saying they find it uncomfortable etc?
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:10 PM
Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D
LOL I just need a phone that has decent service in my area, a decent camera phone, text messaging, and I'm set. It doesn't hurt if it looks cool, either. But I don't really care about 3G right now. Hardly anyone has a 3G network here in Denver.
LOL I just need a phone that has decent service in my area, a decent camera phone, text messaging, and I'm set. It doesn't hurt if it looks cool, either. But I don't really care about 3G right now. Hardly anyone has a 3G network here in Denver.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 23, 05:13 PM
Too bad Apple had to pay when they didn't really infringe.
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
robeddie
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
YESSSS after 3 years of waiting!
It's been 2 years 6 months. The aluminum design prior to that lasted 5 years 10 months (with only a minor thinning when it became the macpro).
Since when did two and a half years become a long time to keep a particular design? And how did some of us get so impatient in our consumer-based lives?
It's been 2 years 6 months. The aluminum design prior to that lasted 5 years 10 months (with only a minor thinning when it became the macpro).
Since when did two and a half years become a long time to keep a particular design? And how did some of us get so impatient in our consumer-based lives?
SuperCachetes
Apr 17, 02:11 PM
Published in USA today. An article titled "Are Lives Really an Acceptable Price for Fuel Efficiency?"
I believe the article you refer to is from the '90's. Regardless, blaming fuel efficiency is a typically American attitude. Why not blame the glut of giant SUVs on the road rather than the small cars? Are countless numbers of EU citizens dying because of their tiny tin-foil cars? Oh noes! :eek:
and SuperCachetes, I was under the impression that US jobs were going out of the country bc we can't afford Union price tags. But if you "think" making labor more expensive will spur hiring, then keep "thinking" that with your "brain" ;)
That "thinking" sounds pretty good; maybe you should try it. (Hint: what you can "afford" has nothing to do with unions.) ;)
Meanwhile, I'll be earning my degree from a top 25 university so that I can get a job that affords healthcare for my children
Yep. Sure hope that job isn't found cheaper elsewhere. :rolleyes:
I believe the article you refer to is from the '90's. Regardless, blaming fuel efficiency is a typically American attitude. Why not blame the glut of giant SUVs on the road rather than the small cars? Are countless numbers of EU citizens dying because of their tiny tin-foil cars? Oh noes! :eek:
and SuperCachetes, I was under the impression that US jobs were going out of the country bc we can't afford Union price tags. But if you "think" making labor more expensive will spur hiring, then keep "thinking" that with your "brain" ;)
That "thinking" sounds pretty good; maybe you should try it. (Hint: what you can "afford" has nothing to do with unions.) ;)
Meanwhile, I'll be earning my degree from a top 25 university so that I can get a job that affords healthcare for my children
Yep. Sure hope that job isn't found cheaper elsewhere. :rolleyes:
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
Umm, you do realize the processor can be 10000000x faster, the system is still completely hammed by the 5600rpm hard drive they put in there. Most tasks are faster on an Air then a 17" Pro. And if you're doing heavy lifting get a Mac Pro. People who bought the new processors don't enjoy the benefits 90% of the time.
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
Not my air :(
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
Not my air :(
Piggie
Apr 15, 03:14 PM
And no BluRay. ;)
Ah, remember, the general consumer is not interested in the specs of BluRay, a nice 720p is plenty good enough so we are told.
Only geeks worry about such specs.
Ah, remember, the general consumer is not interested in the specs of BluRay, a nice 720p is plenty good enough so we are told.
Only geeks worry about such specs.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 12:26 PM
What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.Yeah, if they can fit a Conroe into the iMac, more power to Apple. I just hope it doesn't turn it into the blast furnace my iMac G5 was.
From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.Yeah, if they can fit a Conroe into the iMac, more power to Apple. I just hope it doesn't turn it into the blast furnace my iMac G5 was.
From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
Sodner
Apr 20, 10:51 AM
Eh. Not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned. It's a tracking file on my phone copied to my computer. I have plenty more to worry about like bank or CC info then my exact location at a given moment.
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek:
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek: