nomik2
Mar 29, 12:03 PM
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
min_t
Aug 23, 07:38 PM
There's more to this than anyone here as realised I believe.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
I was thinking the same thing. Creative was asking for a cease order to stop deliveries from Asia. There must be something on that super transport leaving Shanghai harbor last week.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
I was thinking the same thing. Creative was asking for a cease order to stop deliveries from Asia. There must be something on that super transport leaving Shanghai harbor last week.
applebro24
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Come on Mac Mini update; well overdue for a refresh. That Core 2 Duo is keeping me from buying.
rmwebs
Mar 30, 12:30 PM
This whole thing is getting silly. Seriously MS, do something better with your money.
Fanboy much?
Have you seen the list of companies Apple is suing... :rolleyes:
Fanboy much?
Have you seen the list of companies Apple is suing... :rolleyes:
ripfrankwhite
Sep 5, 01:00 PM
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
hayesk
May 3, 07:09 PM
I agree with this completely.
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
prady16
Sep 16, 10:36 AM
That's not speculation, a Zune phone is part of their stated plans (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-09-14T213034Z_01_N14304886_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-MICROSOFT-ZUNE-PHONE.XML).
But then why would he say "Some people might be coming up with that soon" ?
But then why would he say "Some people might be coming up with that soon" ?
Siggen
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
**** it, gonna take my g/f's iPhone, delete the contents of that file, and make it unwrightable. (i dont have an iPhone now)
One more reason to long for a jailbreak on my iPad 2 so i can fix this privacy issue!!!!
Edit: if the iDevice ****s up if you cant wright to this file, simply symlink it to /dev/null (or what ever the osx alternative is)
One more reason to long for a jailbreak on my iPad 2 so i can fix this privacy issue!!!!
Edit: if the iDevice ****s up if you cant wright to this file, simply symlink it to /dev/null (or what ever the osx alternative is)
deputy_doofy
Aug 28, 03:30 PM
there will ALWAYS be updates, if you keep waiting for the next one you'll be waiting forever. Santa rosa isn't going to be THAT amazing of an upgrade. I'd just buy the core duo 2 when they release and then upgrade to leopard later. But that's just me.
Agreed. That would have been like waiting for the 167MHz bus on the old Powerbooks because the 133MHz wasn't cutting it.... :p
Agreed. That would have been like waiting for the 167MHz bus on the old Powerbooks because the 133MHz wasn't cutting it.... :p
notjustjay
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
He quoted that number on a 5M connection...is that what you have?
Pfff, who knows. The quality of our local DSL service has gone to crap lately. I would have thought in theory I should be getting 3M, but in reality, it's been pretty slow lately. It doesn't help that the DSL company I'm with now is one that I was dumped with because the one I had originally subscribed to went out of business. I would switch, but I'm not hearing very good things from neighbors with other companies...
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect. Sure, some of you can do that. But those of us with crappy DSL/cable (or even.. gasp! dialup!) are not in a place yet where large movie downloads are convenient.
Pfff, who knows. The quality of our local DSL service has gone to crap lately. I would have thought in theory I should be getting 3M, but in reality, it's been pretty slow lately. It doesn't help that the DSL company I'm with now is one that I was dumped with because the one I had originally subscribed to went out of business. I would switch, but I'm not hearing very good things from neighbors with other companies...
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect. Sure, some of you can do that. But those of us with crappy DSL/cable (or even.. gasp! dialup!) are not in a place yet where large movie downloads are convenient.
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.
szark
Sep 15, 06:33 PM
What is NIH syndrome?
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.
KilGil27
Sep 26, 11:53 PM
This may never come out...
dernhelm
Sep 5, 02:22 PM
Now, if it's simply an updated Airport Express that now allows you to stream movies but you still have to use your computer do send the files through (AirTunes) then I'll pass. I really don't think they would do it this way though, or at least I hope not.
Plan on being dissapointed. That's pretty much what they'll release. The device will front-end your television, and might (if you are lucky) support component video or DVI, but most likely just composite video. It will probably have a front-row like interface and a remote that can work with it, but it will be incapable of storing any content. The mac will store the content, this device will simply make it available to a TV in any room in your house. Pair it up with a mac mini, and you have a pretty inexpensive solution for downloading TV or Movie content and watching it on your TV.
Myself, I think this could be VERY cool. But I don't spend a lot of time watching TV. If they do it right, I could cancel my NetFlix subscription, though. It just depends on the amount of content.
Plan on being dissapointed. That's pretty much what they'll release. The device will front-end your television, and might (if you are lucky) support component video or DVI, but most likely just composite video. It will probably have a front-row like interface and a remote that can work with it, but it will be incapable of storing any content. The mac will store the content, this device will simply make it available to a TV in any room in your house. Pair it up with a mac mini, and you have a pretty inexpensive solution for downloading TV or Movie content and watching it on your TV.
Myself, I think this could be VERY cool. But I don't spend a lot of time watching TV. If they do it right, I could cancel my NetFlix subscription, though. It just depends on the amount of content.
babyj
Sep 2, 06:51 PM
It had better do. The British public (those who pay license, which like 99% do) has the legal right to every single piece of footage, news story, radio recording etc. etc. the BBC has ever produced, but we have access to about 1% of it.
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
I don't think it is that simple. There are obstacles to the BBC offering more material in digital formats, if they could they would. Plus they already offer far more than any other tv companies in the UK at present.
Everyone seems far too pre-occupied with the USA, forgetting the fact that there is very little (ie none) tv content available to users outside the USA. I'd of thought addressing that would be higher on the list of priorities than offering movies to the USA, especially as there isn't any real opposition for the movie market at present.
More important in the UK though is the Premiership (the top football/soccer league in the UK) - if they started offering complete games for download at say £2 each they'd probably sell out of iPods within a week. It worked for Sky and I'm sure it would for Apple / iTunes.
A bigger threat is Microsofts new 'ipod killer', so I'd be surprised if there isn't a major make over for the iPod range soon - definetly in time for Christmas. No doubt it will be better for watching video, with a movie store following later.
I don't see upgrades to the existing Mini/iMac/Macbook range being that news worthy. Nor is an enhanced home media server type offering likely to be coming soon, I'd of thought that will come in Leopard.
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
I don't think it is that simple. There are obstacles to the BBC offering more material in digital formats, if they could they would. Plus they already offer far more than any other tv companies in the UK at present.
Everyone seems far too pre-occupied with the USA, forgetting the fact that there is very little (ie none) tv content available to users outside the USA. I'd of thought addressing that would be higher on the list of priorities than offering movies to the USA, especially as there isn't any real opposition for the movie market at present.
More important in the UK though is the Premiership (the top football/soccer league in the UK) - if they started offering complete games for download at say £2 each they'd probably sell out of iPods within a week. It worked for Sky and I'm sure it would for Apple / iTunes.
A bigger threat is Microsofts new 'ipod killer', so I'd be surprised if there isn't a major make over for the iPod range soon - definetly in time for Christmas. No doubt it will be better for watching video, with a movie store following later.
I don't see upgrades to the existing Mini/iMac/Macbook range being that news worthy. Nor is an enhanced home media server type offering likely to be coming soon, I'd of thought that will come in Leopard.
Yvan256
Oct 12, 01:42 PM
[...]this one you can actually buy - ColorWare do custom colourisation of iPods, computers, accessories, all sorts of things.
Except that ColorWare paints the products (AFAIK). A red iPod nano from Apple would be red anodized, not red painted.
Except that ColorWare paints the products (AFAIK). A red iPod nano from Apple would be red anodized, not red painted.
DVK916
Jul 19, 10:59 PM
Links please. Both low end Merom and Allendale have the same amount of cache. Still, Allendale clocks higher and faster.
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
blackNBUK
Apr 11, 07:29 AM
THIS
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
This isn't exactly right, this hack is only for AirTunes (i.e. music). AirPlay for videos works in a different way and uses the same FairPlay DRM as the rest of Apple's stuff. In theory AirTunes being hacked is less of an issue because iTunes music has been DRM free for a few years now. I doubt music execs think like that though! Apple probably don't either, especially if they have a music subscription service on the horizon.
Unfortunately fixing the DRM might be pretty easy. It depends on whether the Airport Express uses the same private key as third-party AirTunes receivers or not. If it uses a different key then it's just a matter of pushing updates for Apple's own stuff.
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
This isn't exactly right, this hack is only for AirTunes (i.e. music). AirPlay for videos works in a different way and uses the same FairPlay DRM as the rest of Apple's stuff. In theory AirTunes being hacked is less of an issue because iTunes music has been DRM free for a few years now. I doubt music execs think like that though! Apple probably don't either, especially if they have a music subscription service on the horizon.
Unfortunately fixing the DRM might be pretty easy. It depends on whether the Airport Express uses the same private key as third-party AirTunes receivers or not. If it uses a different key then it's just a matter of pushing updates for Apple's own stuff.
jacob1201
Sep 12, 04:17 PM
will search and quick scroll be in my ipod's next update?
I've updated the software... games work, quick scroll works... but no search :(... unless I'm just blind and am missing something. Seems like it should be there, since everything else seems to be, right? Any thoughts?
I've updated the software... games work, quick scroll works... but no search :(... unless I'm just blind and am missing something. Seems like it should be there, since everything else seems to be, right? Any thoughts?
MacPhreak
Oct 12, 03:52 PM
Cured because the president had polio and before the corporate greed infrastructure took hold. NEXT...
You're a barrel of monkeys, aren't you? Remind me to move to the other end of the bar next time you're in town. If memory serves, polio was cured AFTER FDR died/left office, in fact almost 20 years later.
Polio vaccines??? Are you serious?? When was the last time anyone had one? Forty years? Please.
You're a barrel of monkeys, aren't you? Remind me to move to the other end of the bar next time you're in town. If memory serves, polio was cured AFTER FDR died/left office, in fact almost 20 years later.
Polio vaccines??? Are you serious?? When was the last time anyone had one? Forty years? Please.
MikeyTree
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
What is your firearms experience? How many times have you been shot at? Do you think the security guard make a Hollywood head shot?
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
Doesn't matter if it has been opened. I bought an iMac right before the new ones came out, it was bto with the upc cut out and sent in for the free iPod offer. They gave a FULL refund with no restocking fee, even I made sure they knew it was opened with the upc cut off. This policy is different than their normal return policy.
are you sure whether or not the same goes for ipod products?
are you sure whether or not the same goes for ipod products?
SuperCachetes
Apr 10, 11:03 AM
Government-mandated vacation??? Why, those socialists! The damn government can keep its filthy hands outta my- hey, wait a minute... Did you say 5 weeks? :p
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 12:28 PM
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
I'm aware that Steve isn't going to be there. I guess I just don't see how this is anything newsworthy. We're going to hear about updates, get some announcements. We all know that. It just seems like an odd and obvious macrumors/new story to me. That's all.
On the other hand, I want an iPhone, a widescreen iPod, a larger capacity Nano, a merom MBP, etc. :)
I'm aware that Steve isn't going to be there. I guess I just don't see how this is anything newsworthy. We're going to hear about updates, get some announcements. We all know that. It just seems like an odd and obvious macrumors/new story to me. That's all.
On the other hand, I want an iPhone, a widescreen iPod, a larger capacity Nano, a merom MBP, etc. :)