koobcamuk
Jan 2, 03:27 PM
Anti-virus software company in "there is a virus" headline shocker.
Whatever next? Insurance companies telling you that your house needs insurance?
Whatever next? Insurance companies telling you that your house needs insurance?
rdrr
Sep 15, 06:39 PM
...
Widgets?
...
Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.
Widgets?
...
Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.
PhatBoyG
May 3, 11:54 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:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
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.
asdf542
Apr 22, 02:01 PM
I heard the name HP Envy, but I never bothered looking what it is. So yes, I ignore it.
So, if there's no option to have heated seats in the Audi, that looks bad.
The all new 15" Zacate notebook with an 18W CPU with a **** dispenser totally destroys the usefulness of a 15" MacBook Pro with a 45W CPU without a **** dispenser. The MacBook Pro needs a **** dispenser or else it looks bad.
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
So, if there's no option to have heated seats in the Audi, that looks bad.
The all new 15" Zacate notebook with an 18W CPU with a **** dispenser totally destroys the usefulness of a 15" MacBook Pro with a 45W CPU without a **** dispenser. The MacBook Pro needs a **** dispenser or else it looks bad.
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
looks bad
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 04:11 PM
Steve, if you are reading this, make a nano in ORANGE and I'll buy one. :)
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Personally, I'd love a true blue or navy blue one.
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Personally, I'd love a true blue or navy blue one.
longofest
Oct 12, 01:10 PM
Update: AppleInsider is corroborating the story, and adds that Oprah and Bono filmed a promotional video for the product at Apple's North Michigan Ave. retail store in Chicago today.
Spanky Deluxe
Sep 5, 01:51 PM
New iMacs and Mac Minis imo. Those don't require anything changed apart from a processor swap since they're socketed. I'd give the Macbook Pros and MacBooks a while longer before we see an update.
Edit: If they don't up the quality of the movies to the base HD spec of 720p then they may as well not bother. I'd rather go and buy the DVDs. The only way I'd be tempted to purchase via iTunes would be if the quality I could get would be higher. I don't care if it takes a while to download.
Edit: If they don't up the quality of the movies to the base HD spec of 720p then they may as well not bother. I'd rather go and buy the DVDs. The only way I'd be tempted to purchase via iTunes would be if the quality I could get would be higher. I don't care if it takes a while to download.
Cameront9
Aug 23, 05:44 PM
I agree as it is the only common sense system, but the argument is negated by the patent. That was for a portable music device with Hierarchal menu display/navigation system, (HFS is a file system Apple has used and not used in Creative's players).
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
Oh, I agree that Apple did the sensible thing. But it just makes me angry that they should be in the situation in the first place.
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
Oh, I agree that Apple did the sensible thing. But it just makes me angry that they should be in the situation in the first place.
Vegasman
Apr 28, 10:36 PM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
twoodcc
Sep 5, 01:45 PM
wow. well this confirms it then. man this is gonna be a long week of waiting
Drew n macs
Mar 29, 12:56 PM
I cant downplay a windows phone cause I only had one in my hand for 30 seconds or so, Windows has its work cut out for them against apple eco system of devices and intergration. Best of luck to the competition. Competition is a good thing.
Wilbah
Mar 22, 01:13 PM
That the "pro" line- as in Mac Pro tower - will be the last in the line of machines to get the "thunderbolt" connectivity option.
maclaptop
Apr 19, 07:44 AM
Apple is pathetic.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
weg
Aug 28, 01:03 PM
not that it really matters. but they stole apples thunder.
and since steve compared osx to windows and the mac pro to dell and made lot's of fun about both they'd better stay on top of the game.
I think that Apple shouldn't enter that race.. their products are distinguished by other features than mere processing power (as soon as this changes: goodbye Apple), and coming out with new models every few months will probably just piss off Apple customers (so far, it's pretty easy to know ALL current laptop models that Apple offers - can you say that for Dell, too?).
and since steve compared osx to windows and the mac pro to dell and made lot's of fun about both they'd better stay on top of the game.
I think that Apple shouldn't enter that race.. their products are distinguished by other features than mere processing power (as soon as this changes: goodbye Apple), and coming out with new models every few months will probably just piss off Apple customers (so far, it's pretty easy to know ALL current laptop models that Apple offers - can you say that for Dell, too?).
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
BWhaler
Sep 14, 02:37 AM
This product cannot come soon enough.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 12:51 PM
Gonna need a few more shares to make any money, but good effort. ;)
30 more shares. and dont be a dick. ;)
30 more shares. and dont be a dick. ;)
drzeus
Sep 5, 02:29 PM
I'm not sure that this is an entirely novel thought, but I thought I would test my psychic abilities a little.
The mac mini seems like the target for movies here, not iPods. There's a lot of talk about Airport express and how that might be the killer hardware, but there's more to it than that. Apple is competing against rental stores and netflix to watch movies. No one is just going to want to watch movies on an iPod, they are going to want it on they're TV. So why not have a network box that saves and plays the movies that is attatched to your TV? The mini is already positioned to do exactly that. No keyboard or monitor, maybe just a remote to run Front Row.
Download the movie to the mini, watch it on TV at your convenience. Mac video on demand. Start doing that with TV shows and all of a sudden, Tivo has got a serious contender, too.
The hard bit will be having full-quality movies sent to your home, VOD style.
The new iPod is a phone. There may be a video ipod, but I doubt that it's a main target for the movies.
I have this wonderful feeling that it'll be even cooler than this, but this is what I am expecting.
Dr. Z.
The mac mini seems like the target for movies here, not iPods. There's a lot of talk about Airport express and how that might be the killer hardware, but there's more to it than that. Apple is competing against rental stores and netflix to watch movies. No one is just going to want to watch movies on an iPod, they are going to want it on they're TV. So why not have a network box that saves and plays the movies that is attatched to your TV? The mini is already positioned to do exactly that. No keyboard or monitor, maybe just a remote to run Front Row.
Download the movie to the mini, watch it on TV at your convenience. Mac video on demand. Start doing that with TV shows and all of a sudden, Tivo has got a serious contender, too.
The hard bit will be having full-quality movies sent to your home, VOD style.
The new iPod is a phone. There may be a video ipod, but I doubt that it's a main target for the movies.
I have this wonderful feeling that it'll be even cooler than this, but this is what I am expecting.
Dr. Z.
jofarmer
Sep 12, 03:43 PM
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
Hattig
Mar 29, 11:32 AM
The issue is that people don't care about Nokia phones any more.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
sinsin07
Mar 23, 05:11 PM
I was waiting for the "if it saves one life argument" - that spurious argument is why we are losing all individual freedoms in the US and the world.
Approximately 42,000 people dies in car accidents a year. If you outlaw cars you will save 42,000 lives. Isn't that worth it? Not just 1 - 42,000!
In fact, we could make society like a prison, and then we will all be safe.
Although in prisons, which has guards and fences, murders still occur, drugs get in, etc. The whole safety argument is a false argument. I feel we have made a wrong turn in this culture and by people thinking we can legislate a perfect world, we are, in fact, making a living hell.
You counter point is just as silly.
Approximately 42,000 people dies in car accidents a year. If you outlaw cars you will save 42,000 lives. Isn't that worth it? Not just 1 - 42,000!
In fact, we could make society like a prison, and then we will all be safe.
Although in prisons, which has guards and fences, murders still occur, drugs get in, etc. The whole safety argument is a false argument. I feel we have made a wrong turn in this culture and by people thinking we can legislate a perfect world, we are, in fact, making a living hell.
You counter point is just as silly.
Multimedia
Sep 3, 08:06 PM
This is torture for me too. My oldest daughter's birthday is the 7th and she's already expecting a notebook. I'm still trying to hold off ordering at least 1 of 2 MacBooks until Tuesday.
I can order a refurb 2.0 with no problem or blindly order a new 2.0 MacBook at education price hoping it will ship with any updates.
The problem is timing. If the MacBooks do not update, I end up with a new stripped MacBook 2.0. If I cave and go for the refurb, it gets here faster and it may include a bit of refurb candy.How old is your daughter about to be? Will she understand waiting for the Merom MacBook? It's gonna be the same speed but it will have twice the L2 cache (4MB) which should make a performance difference. It will also have aabout 30% longer battery life, according to preliminary tests at PC Perspectives (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1), and run cooler. If you can talk her into it, I would wait however long it takes for the Merom MacBook which I think will be before Thanksgiving worst case.
I doubt it will happen in September if that's what you're hoping for. Not enough supply. MBP & iMac get 'em first.
I can order a refurb 2.0 with no problem or blindly order a new 2.0 MacBook at education price hoping it will ship with any updates.
The problem is timing. If the MacBooks do not update, I end up with a new stripped MacBook 2.0. If I cave and go for the refurb, it gets here faster and it may include a bit of refurb candy.How old is your daughter about to be? Will she understand waiting for the Merom MacBook? It's gonna be the same speed but it will have twice the L2 cache (4MB) which should make a performance difference. It will also have aabout 30% longer battery life, according to preliminary tests at PC Perspectives (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1), and run cooler. If you can talk her into it, I would wait however long it takes for the Merom MacBook which I think will be before Thanksgiving worst case.
I doubt it will happen in September if that's what you're hoping for. Not enough supply. MBP & iMac get 'em first.
dst98
Apr 30, 01:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
When do you estimate they will come out with the redesigned exterior?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
When do you estimate they will come out with the redesigned exterior?
No comments:
Post a Comment