Silentwave
Sep 15, 11:23 PM
Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:
SeaFox
Sep 26, 09:42 PM
Cingular is one of the only GSM providers in the USA. This is great news!
Yeah, one of the only ones besides T-Mobile, AllTel, and AT&T Wireless (who they bought out). :rolleyes:
Yeah, one of the only ones besides T-Mobile, AllTel, and AT&T Wireless (who they bought out). :rolleyes:
macteo
Apr 11, 03:46 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lji97caR8J1qimcf5o1_r1_400.jpg
Thanks James Laird amazing work.
I've been able to install ShairPort on my iMac.
Here you can find some instructions (http://mmacteo.tumblr.com/post/4533119926/shairport-instructions) to do the same on your mac(s).
It's relatively easy, you need just some very basic terminal experience.
Thanks James Laird amazing work.
I've been able to install ShairPort on my iMac.
Here you can find some instructions (http://mmacteo.tumblr.com/post/4533119926/shairport-instructions) to do the same on your mac(s).
It's relatively easy, you need just some very basic terminal experience.
zin
Mar 22, 03:18 PM
Yay. This is what I've been waiting for.
Perhaps we will get a good GPU this time with at least 512 MB VRAM :eek: :rolleyes:
Perhaps we will get a good GPU this time with at least 512 MB VRAM :eek: :rolleyes:
jackvalko
Apr 4, 11:46 AM
Wow, I heard the ipad2 was a killer product.
RacerX
Aug 23, 08:53 PM
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1.Well, looking at the rough numbers, this settlement has Apple paying about $1.70 for every iPod ever sold.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
I would have (personally) rather seen Apple take the same stand that IBM has taken in the SCO case... but I understand Apple's position on this too.
LarryC
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
I do know that USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt are really great, but it bothers me that Apple seems to be abandoning Firewire. I always thought of Firewire as an apple technology. I've read that there are now Firewire 1600 and 3200 technologies.
I do hope that Apple will adopt the new USB standard. I see USB as being much more useful for average users than Thunderbolt. I was really surprised years ago when I found that my new iPod was unable to use the Firewire cable that my first iPod used.
I do hope that Apple will adopt the new USB standard. I see USB as being much more useful for average users than Thunderbolt. I was really surprised years ago when I found that my new iPod was unable to use the Firewire cable that my first iPod used.
donlphi
Sep 12, 02:40 PM
Err, can someone please explain what the fascination is over "gapless playback"?:o
<pretty please>
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
<pretty please>
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
rmhop81
Apr 22, 07:52 AM
Not to mention blowing through your entire battery running the radios to stream what you could just as easily sync.
If you really want to stream your own collection over the WAN, there are already NAS appliances and streaming applications on the market that can deliver the goods. And if Apple prices this like their completely underwhelming Mobile Me offering, those alternatives could end up being a lot cheaper.
go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
If you really want to stream your own collection over the WAN, there are already NAS appliances and streaming applications on the market that can deliver the goods. And if Apple prices this like their completely underwhelming Mobile Me offering, those alternatives could end up being a lot cheaper.
go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
.jpg "ladies athing suits,")
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
oneighturbo
Sep 14, 01:15 PM
If the new one is announced before your order ships, it will be automatically upgraded. Otherwise, you should return the unopened product within 2 weeks of purchase for a free upgrade.
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
gugy
Sep 5, 12:35 PM
by the invitation I would predict (or maybe wishful thinking) :D :
Itunes Movie Store
New Airport xpress with video capabilities.
new Front Row with DVR capability (that would be really nice)
device to connect cable TV to the Mac (ala Elgato)
Maybe new IPOD video widescreen.
Itunes Movie Store
New Airport xpress with video capabilities.
new Front Row with DVR capability (that would be really nice)
device to connect cable TV to the Mac (ala Elgato)
Maybe new IPOD video widescreen.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 10:32 AM
Good work buy this group. Hopefully Apple addresses this.
Evangelion
Aug 24, 03:29 AM
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent.
That might be so. But Apple has lots of questionable patents as well. Is the Click-wheel REALLY an innovation worth patenting? "We have a wheel, and we have buttons. Why not conbine them?". IIRC, they are also patenting the Mag-Safe, even though similar systems have been used for long time in pressure-cookers (IIRC).
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up.
Because Apple lost? Yes, patent-system IS messed up. But Apple is taking advatange of it as well. Now that Apple lost, everybody complains, yet no-one complains when Apple files for obvious patents as well.
That might be so. But Apple has lots of questionable patents as well. Is the Click-wheel REALLY an innovation worth patenting? "We have a wheel, and we have buttons. Why not conbine them?". IIRC, they are also patenting the Mag-Safe, even though similar systems have been used for long time in pressure-cookers (IIRC).
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up.
Because Apple lost? Yes, patent-system IS messed up. But Apple is taking advatange of it as well. Now that Apple lost, everybody complains, yet no-one complains when Apple files for obvious patents as well.
e-coli
May 3, 11:38 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
Whaaaaa? :confused:
aristobrat
Sep 4, 09:22 PM
If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
I'd be surprised if the majority of the market isn't stuck with set-top boxes that make products like Elgato useless.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the market isn't stuck with set-top boxes that make products like Elgato useless.
munkery
Mar 18, 08:10 PM
Linux = ~1%
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
JGowan
Sep 19, 08:20 PM
this moel apple is using is fine, but 2 things need to happen, 1, much teh same as netflix, they should send you a blank dvd with case for each order, and secondly, like the music, all cover art should be given as well. it should be burnable, I would pay 9.99 for movie with the convinience of download, for this proce, even with the less quality if I could burn my own dvd, put it in any dvd player and watch it. but I want all teh artwork as well, so i can FEEL my dvd library growing,
andreasIt's a simple equation, really,...
Netflix account + $5.99 Used DVDs = comes with Plastic Box, Free Shipping and Original Artwork!
andreasIt's a simple equation, really,...
Netflix account + $5.99 Used DVDs = comes with Plastic Box, Free Shipping and Original Artwork!
valiar
Sep 27, 04:18 PM
You do realize DVD itself is heavily DRMed, although its CSS is easily cracked. Its Macrovision protection is flawed, and regional coding can be circumvented.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
I am comparing this iTMS stuff to DVDs because, duh, it costs the same.
And media companies think that I should pay the same money for less stuff in return.
The answer to your second question is YES. iTMS WILL be a better value for me if DRM was cracked, and Apple was not releasing iTunes nerfs to kill the DRM holes.
DVDs are DRMed, but this DRM is hard-coded, cannot be updated, and has already been cracked. Apple, on the other hand, plays cat-and-mouse games with crackers and does update their DRM periodically (of course, to avoid troubles with RIAA/MPAA).
Thus, no matter what they do, I am not buying their stuff. Until the price goes significantly down (read: cheaper than AllOfMP3.com).
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
I am comparing this iTMS stuff to DVDs because, duh, it costs the same.
And media companies think that I should pay the same money for less stuff in return.
The answer to your second question is YES. iTMS WILL be a better value for me if DRM was cracked, and Apple was not releasing iTunes nerfs to kill the DRM holes.
DVDs are DRMed, but this DRM is hard-coded, cannot be updated, and has already been cracked. Apple, on the other hand, plays cat-and-mouse games with crackers and does update their DRM periodically (of course, to avoid troubles with RIAA/MPAA).
Thus, no matter what they do, I am not buying their stuff. Until the price goes significantly down (read: cheaper than AllOfMP3.com).
ChazUK
Apr 19, 11:36 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
izzle22
Sep 26, 11:06 AM
Wonderful... why would Apple choose the carrier with the worst coverage and customer service (well, besides Sprint)??? T-Mobile or Verizon would be better choices...
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
Well, out here Cingular has waaaaaay better coverage than T-Mobile or Verizon, so it's really a matter of where you are located. It really doesn't matter who thinks what about any phone co. Apple will do what Apple wants and there is no reason to sit here and complain about mobile providers all day long when we don't even know if there is an "iPhone". I travel all across the U.S. all year long and I have Cingular with no coverage problems anywhere and customer service has been fine whenever I needed them.
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
Well, out here Cingular has waaaaaay better coverage than T-Mobile or Verizon, so it's really a matter of where you are located. It really doesn't matter who thinks what about any phone co. Apple will do what Apple wants and there is no reason to sit here and complain about mobile providers all day long when we don't even know if there is an "iPhone". I travel all across the U.S. all year long and I have Cingular with no coverage problems anywhere and customer service has been fine whenever I needed them.
Lynxpoint
Sep 13, 11:04 PM
I just do not think Apple is going to introduce a cellular phone. The ideas sound great around here, but I don't see any good busness model for such a device. What is Apple going to make money on selling such a product?
mymacluvsme
Aug 24, 03:56 AM
Is this a one-time payment to include all future uses?
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment