jayducharme
Mar 29, 11:13 AM
Considering that, when the iPhone was first announced, Jobs stated he would be happy with a 1% share of the market, Apple isn't doing too badly. If MS gets their act together with the Windows phone, I can see it getting a larger share. I guess how big a share depends on how Apple and Google respond with their own innovations.
macboy62
Sep 14, 06:57 AM
Okay, check out this phone and then tell me what you would like to see on your iPhone.
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
alvindarkness
Apr 11, 05:08 AM
Lucky its not Sony. Those that exposed it would be in a never ending court case, and everyone's IP that visited macrumors would be subpoenaed by a federal judge.
WillEH
Apr 19, 05:19 PM
What do Apple want out of this? more money?
DeaconGraves
Apr 11, 07:50 AM
That's nice.
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:55 PM
It's only fantasy because not enough law-abiding civilians are toting guns.
Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Columbine, Ft. Hood, the list goes on and on - someone trained, armed, and on location in any of those tragedies could have been a godsend.
The fact an off-duty policeman was onsite at Trolley Square certainly saved many lives, but an armed, trained civilian could have done the same.
In Virginia Tech for instance there was heroics. The professor held his body agains the door and prevented the gunmen from entering and killing more people. The bullets passed through the door and killed the professor but he was a hero Or does he need a gun to be a hero?
There would have been no preventing that guy from killing. Sure he might have been killed. But he would have killed before people got their guns out to shoot back. And If there had been more people carrying guns there likely would have been cross fire from incompetent gun toters.
It is a fantasy story you concoct. But keep dreaming. Perhaps someday you'll get to be the hero. Lets hope you don't wet yourself in the process.
Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Columbine, Ft. Hood, the list goes on and on - someone trained, armed, and on location in any of those tragedies could have been a godsend.
The fact an off-duty policeman was onsite at Trolley Square certainly saved many lives, but an armed, trained civilian could have done the same.
In Virginia Tech for instance there was heroics. The professor held his body agains the door and prevented the gunmen from entering and killing more people. The bullets passed through the door and killed the professor but he was a hero Or does he need a gun to be a hero?
There would have been no preventing that guy from killing. Sure he might have been killed. But he would have killed before people got their guns out to shoot back. And If there had been more people carrying guns there likely would have been cross fire from incompetent gun toters.
It is a fantasy story you concoct. But keep dreaming. Perhaps someday you'll get to be the hero. Lets hope you don't wet yourself in the process.
Evangelion
Sep 9, 11:23 AM
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
[INDENT]"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Wanna bet that Napa64 is 100% identical to ordinary Napa, apart from the fact that the CPU is Merom, instead of Yonah? Since Napa is a platform, just chaning the CPU to something else would mean that the platform has been refreshed.
[INDENT]"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Wanna bet that Napa64 is 100% identical to ordinary Napa, apart from the fact that the CPU is Merom, instead of Yonah? Since Napa is a platform, just chaning the CPU to something else would mean that the platform has been refreshed.
cube
Mar 30, 11:33 AM
Microsoft gives no trademark trouble to other windowing systems, even X Window (which already existed before).
Microsoft gives no trademark trouble to OpenOffice, NeoOffice, and so on.
Microsoft gives no trademark trouble to OpenOffice, NeoOffice, and so on.
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.
Silentwave
Jul 17, 08:08 AM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.
Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.
I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.
Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.
Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:
Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.
I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.
Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.
Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:
GGJstudios
Mar 16, 04:59 PM
It this utter ignorance and false sense of security in the Mac user base that I would use to my advantage if I were a cyber-criminal.
It's neither ignorance nor a false sense of security. It's an awareness that virus threats don't exist and no antivirus can protect against something that doesn't exist.
I've seen more than enough evidence over the past few years to tell me that it's far from safe.
No OS is immune to malware, but it's impossible to protect yourself from something that does not yet exist.
The latest Safari/Webkit hacking contest result alone should be enough to cause any reasonable person to take notice.
Hacking a browser and creating a virus that can infect Mac OS X are two different animals.
I think a few people will be changing their tunes the day the crap finally hits the fan.
The day it "hits the fan", news sites and forums will be buzzing about the threat, making most Mac users aware. At that time a protection to the threat will be introduced. Only an extremely minute percentage of Mac users are likely to ever be infected, should that ever happen. Any antivirus apps installed today will be completely useless in defending against a newly-introduced virus, because they simply don't know what to look for.
It's neither ignorance nor a false sense of security. It's an awareness that virus threats don't exist and no antivirus can protect against something that doesn't exist.
I've seen more than enough evidence over the past few years to tell me that it's far from safe.
No OS is immune to malware, but it's impossible to protect yourself from something that does not yet exist.
The latest Safari/Webkit hacking contest result alone should be enough to cause any reasonable person to take notice.
Hacking a browser and creating a virus that can infect Mac OS X are two different animals.
I think a few people will be changing their tunes the day the crap finally hits the fan.
The day it "hits the fan", news sites and forums will be buzzing about the threat, making most Mac users aware. At that time a protection to the threat will be introduced. Only an extremely minute percentage of Mac users are likely to ever be infected, should that ever happen. Any antivirus apps installed today will be completely useless in defending against a newly-introduced virus, because they simply don't know what to look for.
Bawstun
Apr 20, 01:03 PM
This is really, really, REALLY bad for Apple. Bad publicity - and quite alarming.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
GregA
Sep 15, 10:44 PM
'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? It seems that Apple has a choice.
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
inkhead
Sep 26, 02:56 PM
If this is true you can always by the phone at the cingular store outright, then unlock it and use it on any carrier.
I for one in disappointed they went with GSM
I for one in disappointed they went with GSM
BenRoethig
Sep 5, 01:57 PM
This could be either really big or really bad. Either way, I don't see it going over to well without a burn to DVD option. It also needs a settop media mac. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how everything develops. Good thing I'll be in Milwaukee on the 12th. I might want to go to Mayfair to see how everything went.
AppleScruff1
Mar 23, 06:46 PM
How do you feel about Amazon selling "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" ?
Warbrain
Apr 20, 11:01 AM
Fail. It says I can withdraw by turning off location services. It still collects even though location services are turned off. Try again Applogist.
All I've seen is one paragraph claiming that. Until someone shows data from when location services was turned off it's hard to run with it.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
All I've seen is one paragraph claiming that. Until someone shows data from when location services was turned off it's hard to run with it.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 01:18 AM
umm good luck with that. My father has a ticket to prove other wise. He made the mistake and cut off a guy who was speeding by mistake. Cop handed him a ticket for illegal lane changed and the other guy a ticket for doing 20 over the limit.
It was declared a no fault and both were on their own. Both cars totaled.
You cut her off therefor made an unsafe lane changed. Legally you should of given her enough room to be able to adjust for you. Add to the fact you are 16 and chances are would be a witness or 2 saying you were speeding. Your word vs hers and your word is pretty worthless.
And if you did if they can prove malice or road rage you just increased your charges and heck could be nailed for insurance fraud as well.
You are proving to us all that you should not have a DL. You just are increasing the case that you should not be behind a wheel of a car.
On and do not use the argument that the car can do 186 mph. Sorry that is for another country. Top it off I am pretty sure my car can out handle your car.
Well I'm sorry to hear that happened to your father. My mother was in a similar situation a few years back. She cut off an idiot doing 20 under the speed limit, slammed on the brakes, and there was a wreck. The guy she cut off was found to be at fault for not maintaining a proper distance, my mother was not found at fault. She openly told the cops that she had just passed the guy, and after she passed she thought she saw a squirrel enter the road, so she slammed on the breaks. On top of doing $15,000 grand worth of damage to the guys car (which he had to pay for due to not having broadform insurance) she then sued him for her $2,000 deductible, and won. Sucks to be him, maybe he does the speed limit now.
EDIT: @ EricNau - what do you guys not understand about "she was doing 65mph is a 70mph zone" which she then lowered to 55mph after brakechecking me????????
-Don
It was declared a no fault and both were on their own. Both cars totaled.
You cut her off therefor made an unsafe lane changed. Legally you should of given her enough room to be able to adjust for you. Add to the fact you are 16 and chances are would be a witness or 2 saying you were speeding. Your word vs hers and your word is pretty worthless.
And if you did if they can prove malice or road rage you just increased your charges and heck could be nailed for insurance fraud as well.
You are proving to us all that you should not have a DL. You just are increasing the case that you should not be behind a wheel of a car.
On and do not use the argument that the car can do 186 mph. Sorry that is for another country. Top it off I am pretty sure my car can out handle your car.
Well I'm sorry to hear that happened to your father. My mother was in a similar situation a few years back. She cut off an idiot doing 20 under the speed limit, slammed on the brakes, and there was a wreck. The guy she cut off was found to be at fault for not maintaining a proper distance, my mother was not found at fault. She openly told the cops that she had just passed the guy, and after she passed she thought she saw a squirrel enter the road, so she slammed on the breaks. On top of doing $15,000 grand worth of damage to the guys car (which he had to pay for due to not having broadform insurance) she then sued him for her $2,000 deductible, and won. Sucks to be him, maybe he does the speed limit now.
EDIT: @ EricNau - what do you guys not understand about "she was doing 65mph is a 70mph zone" which she then lowered to 55mph after brakechecking me????????
-Don
dsnort
Aug 31, 08:23 PM
Now, I may be wrong, but if they roll out iTunes movies in Paris or London, won't they be introducing the product in a locale where it won't be available?
fabsgwu
Jul 14, 12:33 PM
that was just noise.
Either way I'll wait until the imac gets a desktop chip rather than a Laptop one.
I actually enjoyed that :P
Either way I'll wait until the imac gets a desktop chip rather than a Laptop one.
I actually enjoyed that :P
Multimedia
Sep 14, 05:44 PM
According to MacWorld, they originally reported the date as the 24th, but have corrected their article and it is the 25th.
Not a huge deal, just clarifies that there will not be an Apple Special event then a seperate event at Photokina.
--HGDo we have an exact hour the event will be held. Because it's at least 8 maybe 10 hours later in Germany than it is in San Francisco. So that would be helpful. I haven't had time to read teh whole thread.
I think it will be Aperature 2 UB and the MBP launch. 2.33GHz C2D 17" with easy HD access and swap outs.
So I guess it's eleven more days for Apple to keep buildin' 'em and stackin' 'em on up and dispersin' 'em throught the planet so we can TROUNCE on 'em that fateful Monday morning when Apple starts sellin' 'em.! :p
Not a huge deal, just clarifies that there will not be an Apple Special event then a seperate event at Photokina.
--HGDo we have an exact hour the event will be held. Because it's at least 8 maybe 10 hours later in Germany than it is in San Francisco. So that would be helpful. I haven't had time to read teh whole thread.
I think it will be Aperature 2 UB and the MBP launch. 2.33GHz C2D 17" with easy HD access and swap outs.
So I guess it's eleven more days for Apple to keep buildin' 'em and stackin' 'em on up and dispersin' 'em throught the planet so we can TROUNCE on 'em that fateful Monday morning when Apple starts sellin' 'em.! :p
toddybody
Apr 22, 12:29 PM
The TDPs are around the same as with previous gen, or possibly even less (the TDP of 320M is unknown). Also, Turbo Boost will only be activated if the thermals allow that. If your CPU is already running at 90?C, then Turbo most likely won't kick in.
I doubt SB will make MBA run noticeably hotter.
Agreed. Though I thought SB was roughy 10% more efficient in regards to TDP, than previous core gens...thereby making it a thermal improvement. Also, no cooling requirements for a 320m...all on the SB chip.
I doubt SB will make MBA run noticeably hotter.
Agreed. Though I thought SB was roughy 10% more efficient in regards to TDP, than previous core gens...thereby making it a thermal improvement. Also, no cooling requirements for a 320m...all on the SB chip.
mox358
Sep 4, 09:51 PM
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
Very good counterpoint. But then to protect their TV show sales in the U.S. if they leave out the tuner here, and include in it other countries that would look really bad.
The obvious solution is not to include one from the start. If people want one, then sell them the EyeTV on the Apple store. Makes Apple's base hardware cheaper (which looks good in advertisements), keeps all their hardware the same in different countries (which looks good to investors and the public doesn't feel like they're getting screwed), and still offer the option to those who want it while keeping a Mac supporting company happy (by not stepping on their toes and killing them).
I don't think a TV tuner/Media mac is a bad idea, I just don't think its gonna happen for the reasons I mentioned. I could be wrong though, I'm just speculating. I haven't had a chance to take any crappy camera phone pictures of un-announced Apple products in shady elevators lately:D
Very good counterpoint. But then to protect their TV show sales in the U.S. if they leave out the tuner here, and include in it other countries that would look really bad.
The obvious solution is not to include one from the start. If people want one, then sell them the EyeTV on the Apple store. Makes Apple's base hardware cheaper (which looks good in advertisements), keeps all their hardware the same in different countries (which looks good to investors and the public doesn't feel like they're getting screwed), and still offer the option to those who want it while keeping a Mac supporting company happy (by not stepping on their toes and killing them).
I don't think a TV tuner/Media mac is a bad idea, I just don't think its gonna happen for the reasons I mentioned. I could be wrong though, I'm just speculating. I haven't had a chance to take any crappy camera phone pictures of un-announced Apple products in shady elevators lately:D
Multimedia
Sep 12, 06:05 PM
hmmm works fine for me :) Took a while longer to load on the iPod (had ablack screen for about 5 secs) but plays fine.OK Please play on computer and get info - Command i - while playing to know for certain it is 640x480 H.264. On the bottom it says Normal Size: What numbers are there? In Format: it will say H.264 if it was encoded that way. Also what is the FPS Number playing? Should be 30.
Thank you.
Thank you.
