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.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 31, 01:06 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!
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 08:20 PM
Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.The 970FX specifications are littered in my earlier posts in this thread and in the Woodcrest thread.
I believe it was along the lines of 80w of power with 25-47w TDP.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608770&postcount=148
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608968&postcount=154
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2614723&postcount=44
I believe it was along the lines of 80w of power with 25-47w TDP.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608770&postcount=148
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608968&postcount=154
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2614723&postcount=44
milo
Sep 13, 09:16 AM
I have never been more happy to be proven wrong. But now: Steve has been lying to us about the capabilities of this great iPod 5G for nearly a year now, just so we wouldn't anticipate the iTunes Movie Store.
Lying? Come on. It already supported 640 in mpeg4, he never said it couldn't support other resolutions in the future with a firmware/software update. Did he ever say, "The hardware makes it impossible to ever support 640 with h.264"? No.
Lying? Come on. It already supported 640 in mpeg4, he never said it couldn't support other resolutions in the future with a firmware/software update. Did he ever say, "The hardware makes it impossible to ever support 640 with h.264"? No.
fredoviola
Apr 4, 11:48 AM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I agree. Incredibly sad. :(
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I agree. Incredibly sad. :(
Dorv
Apr 11, 08:01 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Airfoil does this, no?
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Airfoil does this, no?
cube
May 3, 12:46 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
Harthansen
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
This is suppose to be a "Media Event"?
They need to get rid of that little useless iPod 4:3 screen. Put in at least an anamorphic 720x480 widescreen model. That little iPod screen will keep me without any interest in any ipod above the Nano. Speaking of the nano... Is the new nano suppose to be cutting edge? It has the same look as the iPod mini. So 3 years ago! Where did the cutting edge go?
Itunes 7 Woo Hoo!
Expensive low quality movies. Double Woo Hoo! Amazon has actual DVD quality movies, for the same price range, and a much better selection. iTunes is only ahead now with the cool interface, but still the technology is not improving as fast as the competition.
Apple is in a slow fall...
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
$4.99 Atari quality Games??
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't waste my time downloading them for free! Never mind 5 bucks for Tetris!! Boo. I say Boo, Mr Jobs. It's like Apple isn't trying anymore. Steve wake T.F. up! What are you doing? You're getting lazy in your old age!
-Hart Hansen
http://www.myspace.com/harthansen
... generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
They need to get rid of that little useless iPod 4:3 screen. Put in at least an anamorphic 720x480 widescreen model. That little iPod screen will keep me without any interest in any ipod above the Nano. Speaking of the nano... Is the new nano suppose to be cutting edge? It has the same look as the iPod mini. So 3 years ago! Where did the cutting edge go?
Itunes 7 Woo Hoo!
Expensive low quality movies. Double Woo Hoo! Amazon has actual DVD quality movies, for the same price range, and a much better selection. iTunes is only ahead now with the cool interface, but still the technology is not improving as fast as the competition.
Apple is in a slow fall...
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
$4.99 Atari quality Games??
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't waste my time downloading them for free! Never mind 5 bucks for Tetris!! Boo. I say Boo, Mr Jobs. It's like Apple isn't trying anymore. Steve wake T.F. up! What are you doing? You're getting lazy in your old age!
-Hart Hansen
http://www.myspace.com/harthansen
... generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
liketom
Oct 12, 12:19 PM
if true thats good , but should be more like 10%
MrFirework
Oct 27, 11:04 AM
Sure, they wandered away from their stall to the entrance to hand out leaflets, but so did half or dozen or so other stallholders. The fact remains that I haven't heard of anyone else being ejected because of this. And it makes you concerned that they were singled out because of the message they were trying to convey.
Okay... I'm not quite done, you can get back to your whining in a moment.
See that area emphasized above? That's the exact thing that causes all our bickering in but the U.S. and the U.K.. The idea that somehow it's okay to violate contracts, laws or even social norms just because you agree with the reason for breaking said rules. If you have a problem with the rules, get them changed, until you do, obey them. There's a reason it's called "civilization" - we all have to be civil for it to work.
Okay. Now I'm really done.
Okay... I'm not quite done, you can get back to your whining in a moment.
See that area emphasized above? That's the exact thing that causes all our bickering in but the U.S. and the U.K.. The idea that somehow it's okay to violate contracts, laws or even social norms just because you agree with the reason for breaking said rules. If you have a problem with the rules, get them changed, until you do, obey them. There's a reason it's called "civilization" - we all have to be civil for it to work.
Okay. Now I'm really done.
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:38 PM
No, actually it says:
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);
This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)
It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);
This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)
It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
7on
Sep 8, 09:12 AM
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Right.
Leopard will at the very least run on 2004 era macs and most likely all the way back to 2001.
Right.
Leopard will at the very least run on 2004 era macs and most likely all the way back to 2001.
jamesi
Oct 12, 08:04 PM
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
same deal to me, its a publicity stunt
same deal to me, its a publicity stunt
nwcs
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.
levitynyc
Sep 9, 11:53 AM
I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 01:42 AM
wow clearly no one in your family should not be hind the wheel of a car.
You all do road rage.
One day someone will pull a gun on you.
Sadly the cop was a crappy investigatory because your mom did an illegally lane changed. plus road rage and really there was a lot of room to prove it but you had a lazy cop and then a mother who lies and teachers her son to lie and pull the same crap.
Speaking of road rage: Recently my Nana leaned out the window of her car and shook her fist at a taxi driver because he accidentally cut her off or something. It was so funny, and it was good that the taxi driver didn't take offense ;)
You all do road rage.
One day someone will pull a gun on you.
Sadly the cop was a crappy investigatory because your mom did an illegally lane changed. plus road rage and really there was a lot of room to prove it but you had a lazy cop and then a mother who lies and teachers her son to lie and pull the same crap.
Speaking of road rage: Recently my Nana leaned out the window of her car and shook her fist at a taxi driver because he accidentally cut her off or something. It was so funny, and it was good that the taxi driver didn't take offense ;)
tigress666
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
I haven't read the article but it sounds like the guard was shot at.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
jagolden
Sep 16, 07:01 PM
:/why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology? :/
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/
The real reason many foriegn cell phone providers and services are way ahead of the US is an old one:
The US has had superior LANDLINE service for decades. As foreign countries began to develop worthwhile telephone service (in telephone history, relatively recent), thye opted for more that was not locked in to landlines and the progression of technology gave them a good lead, as opposed to the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/
The real reason many foriegn cell phone providers and services are way ahead of the US is an old one:
The US has had superior LANDLINE service for decades. As foreign countries began to develop worthwhile telephone service (in telephone history, relatively recent), thye opted for more that was not locked in to landlines and the progression of technology gave them a good lead, as opposed to the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
MacinDoc
Sep 9, 11:21 AM
You mean Powerbook hinges, iBook logic boards, MacBook Random Shutdown Syndrome (RSS) (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=274), eMac logic boards (http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/emac/topic4116.html), Powerbook memory slot, White spots and lines on Powerbook screens, chipping paint, cracked cubes, iMac G5 video and power problems,Apple repair extensions (http://www.apple.com/support/),...
I see your point!
Umm, sorry, but according to Consumer Reports' (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm)survey of 49,000 laptop users, Apple was tied for the third fewest number of laptop repairs since at 17% (compared to Sony and IBM at 16%, a negligible difference). And, according to their survey of 85,000 desktop users, all other desktop manufacturers had at least 36% more repairs than Apple, and Gateway had a whopping 91% more repairs than Apple.
Just because Apple offers extended service programs for computers beyond their warranty period does not mean that its computers are low quality, it only means that Apple is making an exceptional effort to maintain the loyalty of its customer base by doing more than the minimum required. Have you ever tried to get free service on a computer beyond its warranty period from another manufacturer?
I see your point!
Umm, sorry, but according to Consumer Reports' (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm)survey of 49,000 laptop users, Apple was tied for the third fewest number of laptop repairs since at 17% (compared to Sony and IBM at 16%, a negligible difference). And, according to their survey of 85,000 desktop users, all other desktop manufacturers had at least 36% more repairs than Apple, and Gateway had a whopping 91% more repairs than Apple.
Just because Apple offers extended service programs for computers beyond their warranty period does not mean that its computers are low quality, it only means that Apple is making an exceptional effort to maintain the loyalty of its customer base by doing more than the minimum required. Have you ever tried to get free service on a computer beyond its warranty period from another manufacturer?
Yvan256
Sep 5, 06:05 PM
OK hear me out on this one - WHAT IF Apple, in all its wisdom and foresight, avoids the format war (Blu-ray vs HD-DVD) altogether by NOT using a physical format? [...] they do something GENIUS like sell DOWNLOADABLE HD movies on their iTunes store and release a stream-to-TV device!
That's been my point of view since day one. Some kind of hardware to connect between your computer(s) and your television and you get your movies from the iTMS (iTunes Media Store).
The only thing that I'd like to see (and I'm sure I won't) is rentals. I wouldn't mind downloading 480p movies for rentals, either. It lowers the bandwidth costs, the download time, etc.
Will the "box" be an Airport Xpress (or something) or a special version of Mac mini (super-low cost, no hard drive, no optical drive, 512MB soldered on-board, not upgradable).
That's been my point of view since day one. Some kind of hardware to connect between your computer(s) and your television and you get your movies from the iTMS (iTunes Media Store).
The only thing that I'd like to see (and I'm sure I won't) is rentals. I wouldn't mind downloading 480p movies for rentals, either. It lowers the bandwidth costs, the download time, etc.
Will the "box" be an Airport Xpress (or something) or a special version of Mac mini (super-low cost, no hard drive, no optical drive, 512MB soldered on-board, not upgradable).
nishioka
Apr 22, 04:16 AM
I hate this cloud crap. All just an excuse to take away the consumers control of what they buy or use.
We need a boycott.
BRB guys. Going to go re-read the article so I can find the part where it says Apple is taking away everybody's hard drives.
We need a boycott.
BRB guys. Going to go re-read the article so I can find the part where it says Apple is taking away everybody's hard drives.
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 04:48 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
-Garry-
Oct 12, 06:03 PM
This will be part of the (RED) campaign.
More information over here at MySpace ... http://www.myspace.com/joinred
More information over here at MySpace ... http://www.myspace.com/joinred
jelloshotsrule
Oct 27, 09:03 AM
Seriously. I mean I support the environment, but I know reactionary sensationalism when I see it. As someone said, Greenpeace has lost most of it's respect, even with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
i followed you up til you implied that the EPA is some gold standard of environmentalism. talk about an agency/group having lost respect...
i followed you up til you implied that the EPA is some gold standard of environmentalism. talk about an agency/group having lost respect...
