gnasher729
Apr 19, 07:49 AM
But that's the thing, this simply can't be about "look and feel" since the precedents on that are firmly established by Apple vs Microsoft where Apple lost the whole "look and feel" part of the suit.
You are quite badly informed. Just because a court case about "look and feel" was lost doesn't mean nobody else can win such a case. Apple lost that one because someone at Apple messed up some contracts between Apple and Microsoft. Unless the facts in two cases are identical you have no precedent.
(If I sued you for damaging my car with a hammer, and you proved in court that you were nowhere near my car when it was damaged, that wouldn't set a precedent that it is now allowed to damage someone else's car with a hammer).
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
Many people want to buy a phone that looks like an iPhone, but are willing to buy a Samsung phone as long as it looks the same. Yes, that is a stupid reason to buy a phone, but some people are like that. Apple thinks that all those people should have to buy the real thing.
And some people base their decision on how nice a phone looks, and they think the iPhone looks nice, and since the Samsung phone looks the same, they think that one looks nice as well. These people might buy a Samsung phone because Apple put lots of effort into designing a nice looking phone, and Samsung just copied it. In Germany, that would fall straight under "unfair competition" and would be blocked for that reason; if one company spends lots of money developing a product and another company just copies it, that is "unfair competition".
You are quite badly informed. Just because a court case about "look and feel" was lost doesn't mean nobody else can win such a case. Apple lost that one because someone at Apple messed up some contracts between Apple and Microsoft. Unless the facts in two cases are identical you have no precedent.
(If I sued you for damaging my car with a hammer, and you proved in court that you were nowhere near my car when it was damaged, that wouldn't set a precedent that it is now allowed to damage someone else's car with a hammer).
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
Many people want to buy a phone that looks like an iPhone, but are willing to buy a Samsung phone as long as it looks the same. Yes, that is a stupid reason to buy a phone, but some people are like that. Apple thinks that all those people should have to buy the real thing.
And some people base their decision on how nice a phone looks, and they think the iPhone looks nice, and since the Samsung phone looks the same, they think that one looks nice as well. These people might buy a Samsung phone because Apple put lots of effort into designing a nice looking phone, and Samsung just copied it. In Germany, that would fall straight under "unfair competition" and would be blocked for that reason; if one company spends lots of money developing a product and another company just copies it, that is "unfair competition".
KPOM
Apr 22, 02:18 PM
Been waiting to get one for a while now. :o
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
There was a settlement. Intel gave NVIDIA $1.5 billion to go away. Unfortunately, that means Intel integrated graphics for the foreseeable future.
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
There was a settlement. Intel gave NVIDIA $1.5 billion to go away. Unfortunately, that means Intel integrated graphics for the foreseeable future.
milo
Sep 11, 03:46 PM
Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
Conroe is intels best bang for the buck. It would be stupid for apple not to use it, and go with chips that are slower and more expensive instead. But apple still does some things that are stupid.
I still think we'll see a mid tower, or at least some mac with conroe. Tommorow? Probably not, but who knows?
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
Conroe is intels best bang for the buck. It would be stupid for apple not to use it, and go with chips that are slower and more expensive instead. But apple still does some things that are stupid.
I still think we'll see a mid tower, or at least some mac with conroe. Tommorow? Probably not, but who knows?
Amazing Iceman
Mar 30, 12:00 PM
Examples of uses (Dvorak in his references to "killer app"):
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together.
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 11, 09:13 AM
It was going to be a chapter in Jobs' autobiography too. LOL
Anyway an odd thin about airplay is the ability to stream just the sound from a video file in itunes. It can't be done but it can be done from iOS.
Anyway an odd thin about airplay is the ability to stream just the sound from a video file in itunes. It can't be done but it can be done from iOS.
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 04:20 PM
This is a great start for Apple and should help sway studios that are still on the fence. Doesnt mean I'm biting though, only thing that'll get me to seriously think of buying a movie would be nothing less than a 720 x 480 reso. I might get impulsive if there are more offerings. Maybe.
I think Apple should seriously consider offering rentals too. Its dumb not to try it out :)
While I think rentals would probably create a lot of headache for apple, I am in complete agreement with HD movies on iTMS. I have yet to even buy a single song from the itunes store, but you can be assured that as soon as HD movies and TV shows are available, coupled with the iTV device, I will be buying those right away. Offering at least 720p would make me very happy, and I would be a definite repeat customer.
I think Apple should seriously consider offering rentals too. Its dumb not to try it out :)
While I think rentals would probably create a lot of headache for apple, I am in complete agreement with HD movies on iTMS. I have yet to even buy a single song from the itunes store, but you can be assured that as soon as HD movies and TV shows are available, coupled with the iTV device, I will be buying those right away. Offering at least 720p would make me very happy, and I would be a definite repeat customer.
Mr. Gates
Mar 23, 04:44 PM
Looks like I have a new $#!T List
ftaok
Sep 26, 07:00 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
Did you even read the link?
Speculation is that O2 will have the exclusive rights to the iPhone in Europe. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think O2 is somehow connected to Orange. So it looks like the iPhone will have a carrier in Europe and the UK.
Did you even read the link?
Speculation is that O2 will have the exclusive rights to the iPhone in Europe. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think O2 is somehow connected to Orange. So it looks like the iPhone will have a carrier in Europe and the UK.
cube
Mar 30, 01:31 PM
Notice how its 1 word. "RoomStore". Room Store wouldn't fly. Its the little things
When would "Room Store" not fly? For a hotel?
When would "Room Store" not fly? For a hotel?
zwida
Sep 10, 08:53 AM
Well, Steve had to hold SOMETHING back to announce on the 12th. I don't think he wants a repeat of the iPod HiFi/leather case announcement, where people were saying, "Is that all?". I figure it has to either be updated laptops or AidenShaw's minitower. Well, in a few more days, we'll all know.
Don't you think the new movie store and sexy new iPods are enough? I guess there might be some kind of new product launch (phone, or streaming movie device, or whatever), but I'll be surprised if there's any Mac hardware bumps of any kind during this speech. It just wouldn't mesh with the "It's Showtime" theme.
Don't you think the new movie store and sexy new iPods are enough? I guess there might be some kind of new product launch (phone, or streaming movie device, or whatever), but I'll be surprised if there's any Mac hardware bumps of any kind during this speech. It just wouldn't mesh with the "It's Showtime" theme.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:55 AM
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.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
I went into it in detail in my earlier post, but basically, Apple is happily giving Creative the teeth it needs to go after Sandisk, iRiver, and most importantly Zune.
Remember, as a result of this settlement, Creative is heavily incentivized to extract payment from every wannabe iPod killer in existence while agreeing not to so much as give Apple a dirty look any more. In fact, as Creative successfully collects licensing fees, it begins to pay Apple back.
It sounds like a $100 million loan to me.
MacinDoc
Sep 14, 12:21 PM
But since everyone's discussing MBP's, I guess it fits.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
Not unless you are good with soldering and don't mind voiding your warranty - the CD chip is soldered onto the motherboard. Also, a firmware update would be required, and may not be available.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
Not unless you are good with soldering and don't mind voiding your warranty - the CD chip is soldered onto the motherboard. Also, a firmware update would be required, and may not be available.
Unorthodox
Aug 31, 02:57 PM
While I would normally agree, look at the MBP, iMac, Mac Mini, iPod 5G, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle and iSight. These products have not been updated for a while and the product line is starting to get stale.
Thats true but... but....
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
Thats true but... but....
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
sunfast
Sep 13, 04:06 AM
Are independent developers going to be able to make iPod games? Maybe porting some of the freeware/shareware out there? Or is this an Apple only money spinner?
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:22 AM
So does turning of Locations Services stop the data collection, or just stop applications from accessing it?
Does turning of Location services delete data already in the file?
I guess it works both ways, if accused of a crime you didn't commit, bring your phone to work and prove you were not their. And if you are going to commit a crime, leave your phone at home.
No one has stated if it does or doesn't. Until someone states what happens we can only go with the SLA.
Does turning of Location services delete data already in the file?
I guess it works both ways, if accused of a crime you didn't commit, bring your phone to work and prove you were not their. And if you are going to commit a crime, leave your phone at home.
No one has stated if it does or doesn't. Until someone states what happens we can only go with the SLA.
mtrctyjoe
Aug 31, 12:52 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
brepublican
Sep 19, 03:54 PM
If it destroys their whole business model, then it is not dumb to not "try it out".
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.
edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.
I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
Mydriasis
Sep 14, 08:08 AM
I will be going to the Photokina, I live like 30min away. Maybe I can go to the special event too :D
I'll see if I need a ticket/invitation (probably not, I am not getting my hopes up yet)
I'll see if I need a ticket/invitation (probably not, I am not getting my hopes up yet)
x86isslow
Sep 19, 01:46 PM
I bought The Sixth Sense. Was a good experience. I'd buy again*.
*Now they just need to get a wider selection.
*Now they just need to get a wider selection.
MacMan86
Apr 12, 06:21 AM
Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
ChrisA
Apr 4, 12:18 PM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
silentnite
Apr 25, 01:59 PM
It's about time to change it up a bit. Only hoping they get better from here, not all change is good ask iphoto 11 users. Getting a new design right can be a bit tricky.
Vegasman
Apr 28, 11:06 PM
I've always wondered what Windows's market share comes from pirated copies of Windows. There's a lot of pirated copies out there.. a lot..
And they still managed to sell 350 million licenses of Windows 7 in 18 months. That's insane! I am telling you... I would like to sit in that room in either Redmond or Cupertino where you see the profit tote board being updated every second, or every minute or whatever. It must just make someone dizzy. It's like 45,000$ a minute. Of profit! Ridicurous. :)
And they still managed to sell 350 million licenses of Windows 7 in 18 months. That's insane! I am telling you... I would like to sit in that room in either Redmond or Cupertino where you see the profit tote board being updated every second, or every minute or whatever. It must just make someone dizzy. It's like 45,000$ a minute. Of profit! Ridicurous. :)
Derekasaurus
Jul 14, 09:47 AM
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to.
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
0 comments:
Post a Comment