adversus
Apr 20, 01:26 PM
I want to thank you all for providing me such wonderful entertainment on my lunch break!
iMacZealot
Sep 21, 05:32 PM
Great breakdown, peharri. :)
TheSideshow
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
thisisahughes
Mar 30, 12:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Apple is upset at Amazon for using AppStore.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
Interesting.
Apple is upset at Amazon for using AppStore.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
Interesting.
JMP
Apr 30, 06:53 PM
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
Neither
Neither
Hellhammer
Apr 23, 02:47 AM
I'd disagree based on the last demo by intel.
Thunderbolt uses DisplayPort 1.1a which is not as good as DisplayPort 1.2 already found in some GPUs.
Thunderbolt uses DisplayPort 1.1a which is not as good as DisplayPort 1.2 already found in some GPUs.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:00 PM
Oh gosh, let's have a black liquid metal .65inch thick, standard ssd, and boosted dpi displays. Hoo yah
puuukeey
Sep 16, 12:47 AM
I have breaking news on the new super secret iPhone. here are some features just added to prototype #62QE91Z-004.2
� teledildonics
� 8 tracks of 88.2 kHz
� extra bnc outputs
� midi jack for ring tones
� 9 core processor
� stamps your passport
� microwavabe
� optional wood paneling
� tv and radio tuner
� dolby digital encoding
� brita filter
� updated version of manhole
� hypercard
� digdug
� dictionary
� todo list
� windows media support
� distributed processing support
� 802.11ntrails
� stereoscopic viewfinder
� soap dispenser
� silicon graphics core
� limewire, torrent, napster
� crank generator
� pet moneky
� built in projector
� band name generator
� bill gates voodoo doll
� address book preloaded with shrubyas rolodex
� built in ipod dock
� LEDS... LOTS OF EM!!!!!
� taste and smell sensor
� navigation system
� google maps
� zippo
more here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=233708&page=9)
� teledildonics
� 8 tracks of 88.2 kHz
� extra bnc outputs
� midi jack for ring tones
� 9 core processor
� stamps your passport
� microwavabe
� optional wood paneling
� tv and radio tuner
� dolby digital encoding
� brita filter
� updated version of manhole
� hypercard
� digdug
� dictionary
� todo list
� windows media support
� distributed processing support
� 802.11ntrails
� stereoscopic viewfinder
� soap dispenser
� silicon graphics core
� limewire, torrent, napster
� crank generator
� pet moneky
� built in projector
� band name generator
� bill gates voodoo doll
� address book preloaded with shrubyas rolodex
� built in ipod dock
� LEDS... LOTS OF EM!!!!!
� taste and smell sensor
� navigation system
� google maps
� zippo
more here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=233708&page=9)
FloatingBones
Apr 20, 01:18 PM
This is a huge concern because of the use by law enforcement (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20055431-1.html) of the Cellebrite device to download and scrutinize the data in cell phones. Apparently, police departments in Michigan are using this device when pulling drivers on traffic violations. Here (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp) is another article on the use in Michigan.
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
The ACLU is trying to get records from the Michigan State Police are using the devices under the FOIA. The MSP says that complying with the FOIA request would cost them money; they are asking for over $500,000 to provide the information.
Read the articles I referenced above. I'd also recommend looking on the ACLU site to see what they have to say.
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
The ACLU is trying to get records from the Michigan State Police are using the devices under the FOIA. The MSP says that complying with the FOIA request would cost them money; they are asking for over $500,000 to provide the information.
Read the articles I referenced above. I'd also recommend looking on the ACLU site to see what they have to say.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 01:36 PM
The funny part is, no matter what Apple does to make this work, whether its really usable, or totally locked-in-worthless, it doesn't matter.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
balamw
Sep 19, 05:24 PM
That's revenue not profit, their profit was $5 billion in 2005 so $50M is about 1% of that, remember that the money from iTunes is practically all profit as their are no real costs for Disney (other than giving Apple a few video files which probably costs $100 000 a year maximum.)
Yes, but from the original Article.
In addition, Iger said the company expects over $50 million in revenue over the first year of the program.
You're right that they probably make better margins on this revenue, but it ain't pure profit.
B
Yes, but from the original Article.
In addition, Iger said the company expects over $50 million in revenue over the first year of the program.
You're right that they probably make better margins on this revenue, but it ain't pure profit.
B
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
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.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
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.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
musiclover137
Aug 23, 10:17 PM
there goes all those iTunes sales:rolleyes:
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
BLUELION
Mar 23, 05:46 PM
I can't comprehend the leap in logic in this line of thinking. The app is on the phone. Using an app is not dangerous. What is dangerous here are people who drink and then proceed to get behind the wheel.
The problem is the drinking not the an app on a phone. If you want to stop drunk driving address the drinking of alcohol.
What next? lets get rid of computer email software because someone can email you where the speed trap is or how about getting rid of web browsers because they are used to display similar content on the web? Ridiculous.
I wish people would just think about the implications of allowing such non-sense from being implemented into law.
If any of you had ever lost someone or had someone that you loved seriously injured by a drunk driver - you'd want this app pulled.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
The problem is the drinking not the an app on a phone. If you want to stop drunk driving address the drinking of alcohol.
What next? lets get rid of computer email software because someone can email you where the speed trap is or how about getting rid of web browsers because they are used to display similar content on the web? Ridiculous.
I wish people would just think about the implications of allowing such non-sense from being implemented into law.
If any of you had ever lost someone or had someone that you loved seriously injured by a drunk driver - you'd want this app pulled.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
izzle22
Oct 12, 08:24 PM
Ultimately: who cares?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Bono has done more good to the world musicly and giving wise than most muscians.
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Bono has done more good to the world musicly and giving wise than most muscians.
jb510
Apr 22, 04:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I do want this but, i actually want wireless sync more. And some other things i cant really think of at the moment. Maybe iOS5 :/
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
I do want this but, i actually want wireless sync more. And some other things i cant really think of at the moment. Maybe iOS5 :/
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
shigzeo
Apr 19, 07:42 PM
Whatever happens, and no matter how stupid I think this lawsuit is, I hope Samsung get a stinker on their international image where people think they are some cute Korean company. As stated many times in this thread, they are the biggest conglomerate in the world and could swallow Apple whole. Hell, they could swallow Venezuela whole, and maybe even Canada. In Korea, they even run the government through many arms.
Comparing an electronics company (Apple) to a freaking giant lizard conglomerate that owns everything and (a little and) electronics, is as stupid as can be. In the age of the internet, why not read a little, first, and then comment on that shytebag murderous bloated tax-evading totalitarian regime known as Samsung.
Comparing an electronics company (Apple) to a freaking giant lizard conglomerate that owns everything and (a little and) electronics, is as stupid as can be. In the age of the internet, why not read a little, first, and then comment on that shytebag murderous bloated tax-evading totalitarian regime known as Samsung.
darklich
Apr 4, 12:27 PM
Exactly.
What a waste. You're failing to see the big picture. People willing to commit armed robbery don't go away quietly into the night once their done. They go on to commit more crimes, some of which might involve bodily harm to you or others.
What a waste. You're failing to see the big picture. People willing to commit armed robbery don't go away quietly into the night once their done. They go on to commit more crimes, some of which might involve bodily harm to you or others.
Applespider
Sep 5, 03:19 PM
Yeah... yeah... Movies for the American audience...
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Precisely... at least a gesture to the international audience would be good.
UK stations offer TV online... but all through WMP that Macs can't use.
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Precisely... at least a gesture to the international audience would be good.
UK stations offer TV online... but all through WMP that Macs can't use.
Eggtastic
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
not cool. i was hoping to sell my 06' MBP to upgrade to hopefully an updated MBA line. but now this means i have to wait more...
iStudentUK
Apr 18, 12:04 PM
Depends where you work. My job, I get 10 holiday days, and 20 vacation/sick leave days. But at former jobs, I got no paid time off.
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
Takeo
Mar 23, 05:15 PM
People who speed and drive under the influence make me sick. Pull the apps. And when you catch the scum, throw them in jail and take away their licence. The don't deserve to walk among us.
wovel
Mar 30, 01:45 PM
Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.
Microsoft's interest is obvious. They want to create marketplace confusion to aid in the sale of an inferior product. You know, the thing trademarks were designed to protect against..
You say App Store, everyone on the planet who does nut have their head shoved up their backside only thinks of one thing. Before Apple made the App store, no one thought of anything at all when you said it...
Microsoft's interest is obvious. They want to create marketplace confusion to aid in the sale of an inferior product. You know, the thing trademarks were designed to protect against..
You say App Store, everyone on the planet who does nut have their head shoved up their backside only thinks of one thing. Before Apple made the App store, no one thought of anything at all when you said it...
No comments:
Post a Comment