Eraserhead
Nov 13, 05:16 PM
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:38 AM
You, sir, get it. The technologies create new capabilities that will adapt to the market. The luddites are only capable of seeing innovation as a loss.
Out of fear imo... or boredom... :P
technological anxiety? :)
Out of fear imo... or boredom... :P
technological anxiety? :)
Silentwave
Sep 6, 10:37 PM
hey, don't knock the cube! you can get a dual 1.6Ghz G4 cube nowadays :rolleyes:
sigamy
Apr 19, 08:53 AM
Apple needs to eat it's own dog food...anyone rememeber Confabulator and Watson?
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
dethmaShine
Apr 25, 01:03 PM
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
Do you suffer from schizophrenia?
Do you suffer from schizophrenia?
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 08:28 PM
As has been mentioned the typical patent litigation is in the $5-$10 M range paid to the attorneys. With the main lawsuit and 5 countersuits they could have made a big dent in that $100M. Even when you have a large legal staff, litigation is usually handled by outside firms that specialize in those kinds of trials. With 32 million iPods sold in 2005 even a $3 licensing fee (~1% on average is not an atypical licensing fee) you'd easily surpass $100M if you were planning to sell iPods for more than 1 more year. A lump sum is preferable.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
Vegasman
Apr 28, 11:06 PM
I've always wondered what Windows's market share comes from pirated copies of Windows. There's a lot of pirated copies out there.. a lot..
And they still managed to sell 350 million licenses of Windows 7 in 18 months. That's insane! I am telling you... I would like to sit in that room in either Redmond or Cupertino where you see the profit tote board being updated every second, or every minute or whatever. It must just make someone dizzy. It's like 45,000$ 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. :)
mobi
Mar 29, 11:23 AM
Thank you for the chuckle during the lunch hour :D
zero2dash
Aug 28, 02:24 PM
They're competitive with the Mac Pro. Very competitive.
Mac Pro - you get a lot for the money. More pricey than most users are willing to spend, but unquestionably, "a lot of bang for the buck".
Still, my point is that Apple isn't trying to remain competitive in regards to grabbing sales or going outside of their niche market. Apple has diehard fans that will purchase whatever they sell, no matter what. They don't need to attempt to go outside of that faction because they'll have a hard time swaying general computer users who are used to Windows already or don't want to pay the premium price. Apple gives you a lot of computer for the price, but the price is still above and beyond what anyone else will charge you. Then it boils down to asking yourself "do you want to pay for the Apple experience" and some people say 'yes' and others say 'no'. For better or worse, I don't see this changing in the near future. Apple does sell competitively priced computers (ie Mini) but they're also limiting the user in regards to upgradability; I don't think anyone can argue the upgrade capabilities of a minitower or tower @ $500 versus a small form factor for $600. Can you upgrade Macs? For the most part, yes, undoubtedly. How far can you upgrade your Mac? That depends on how much you spent upfront on it, deciding between a SFF and a $1,999 Mac Pro tower.
I still love Macs and I enjoy working in OSX, but they really need to get on the 'headless Mac' idea, stat. IMO they could (seemingly overnight) gain at least a 10%+ market share if they released a tower desktop for $600, but that throws a monkey wrench into the rest of their hardware sku lineup, and they're not going to allow that to happen. Unless they kill off the Mini and slash prices on the iMac first, we'll never see a sub-$1,000 Mac in a tower enclosure.
Mac Pro - you get a lot for the money. More pricey than most users are willing to spend, but unquestionably, "a lot of bang for the buck".
Still, my point is that Apple isn't trying to remain competitive in regards to grabbing sales or going outside of their niche market. Apple has diehard fans that will purchase whatever they sell, no matter what. They don't need to attempt to go outside of that faction because they'll have a hard time swaying general computer users who are used to Windows already or don't want to pay the premium price. Apple gives you a lot of computer for the price, but the price is still above and beyond what anyone else will charge you. Then it boils down to asking yourself "do you want to pay for the Apple experience" and some people say 'yes' and others say 'no'. For better or worse, I don't see this changing in the near future. Apple does sell competitively priced computers (ie Mini) but they're also limiting the user in regards to upgradability; I don't think anyone can argue the upgrade capabilities of a minitower or tower @ $500 versus a small form factor for $600. Can you upgrade Macs? For the most part, yes, undoubtedly. How far can you upgrade your Mac? That depends on how much you spent upfront on it, deciding between a SFF and a $1,999 Mac Pro tower.
I still love Macs and I enjoy working in OSX, but they really need to get on the 'headless Mac' idea, stat. IMO they could (seemingly overnight) gain at least a 10%+ market share if they released a tower desktop for $600, but that throws a monkey wrench into the rest of their hardware sku lineup, and they're not going to allow that to happen. Unless they kill off the Mini and slash prices on the iMac first, we'll never see a sub-$1,000 Mac in a tower enclosure.
nemaslov
Sep 19, 04:19 PM
I too would love the collection/library to increase, but for me, the cost of a DVD is virtually the same. It is not like music where you can buy one track off an album.I have a fairly high end system with a 50" HD Plasma, and just got the 80GB iPod which for me is only for music. I love to take a whole collection on the road with me. 20,000 songs!!!.
I also have a pretty good size DVD collection and the quality and lack of limitations for me to play that DVD ....ANYWHERE is worth a few more bucks. The music I already play at home from my iMac and backup hard drives and even though not the same quality as a CD. it is great for background music or parties.
I also live in a fairly big City (San Francisco) with one of the best record stores in the World: Amobea Music, where I can trade or sell the CDs or DVDs that I don't want. They have the most extensive collection of new and used DVDs of anywhere I know.
So say I buy a turkey or simply tired of a film, I can sell it for maybe 3 or 4 bucks or better yet TRADE it for store credit of about 4-6 bucks. That ends up being cheaper than I would pay via any online source abut then I would end up getting a new film for a net cost of under ten bucks. Sometimes even less. If I tire of a download...there is no way I can trade up..
I also have a pretty good size DVD collection and the quality and lack of limitations for me to play that DVD ....ANYWHERE is worth a few more bucks. The music I already play at home from my iMac and backup hard drives and even though not the same quality as a CD. it is great for background music or parties.
I also live in a fairly big City (San Francisco) with one of the best record stores in the World: Amobea Music, where I can trade or sell the CDs or DVDs that I don't want. They have the most extensive collection of new and used DVDs of anywhere I know.
So say I buy a turkey or simply tired of a film, I can sell it for maybe 3 or 4 bucks or better yet TRADE it for store credit of about 4-6 bucks. That ends up being cheaper than I would pay via any online source abut then I would end up getting a new film for a net cost of under ten bucks. Sometimes even less. If I tire of a download...there is no way I can trade up..
Ahheck01
Sep 4, 08:22 PM
I think it is the highly anticipated iToilet with universal iPod dock and count 'em four AppleTalk ports.
No, the iToilet with universal iPod dock was released yesterday. From the press release:
"In the first release of the new iToilet, Apple has included a noise-cancelling feature that masks the noises caused by bodily functions..."
"... can select music files to be played as the flushing sound..."
"... will be available, like the macbook and ipod, in both white and black. Production for the U2 edition was halted after lead singer...."
"...died of a heart attack while using a pre-production iToilet. Several revisions have since been made."
"Steve Jobs is calling it a 'freak accident' and is said to be paying for a custom 'iFuneral' in which all attendees will be offered a rebate on Mac Pro's."
-Evan
No, the iToilet with universal iPod dock was released yesterday. From the press release:
"In the first release of the new iToilet, Apple has included a noise-cancelling feature that masks the noises caused by bodily functions..."
"... can select music files to be played as the flushing sound..."
"... will be available, like the macbook and ipod, in both white and black. Production for the U2 edition was halted after lead singer...."
"...died of a heart attack while using a pre-production iToilet. Several revisions have since been made."
"Steve Jobs is calling it a 'freak accident' and is said to be paying for a custom 'iFuneral' in which all attendees will be offered a rebate on Mac Pro's."
-Evan
stainlessliquid
Oct 27, 02:59 PM
Considering that Apple doesnt make jack inside their computers, maybe they should be going after the other companies that provide Apple parts? I think that would embarass Apple more since I dont think Apple likes people to know that inside every Mac is abunch of PC parts.
They could blame Apple for going with those companies, that would put pressure on Apple to switch to a greener company and would put pressure on those companies to be greener themselves so they please Apple.
And yes a computer will never been totally environmentally friendly but people are managing to COMPLETELY miss the point of what they want. Other companies like Dell have stopped using parts that have certain very harmful "ingredients" since there are more than enough substitutes that work just as well and dont harm the environment. The only thing stopping other companies is cost and laziness, and considering the premium people pay on macs its actually rather absurd that Apple refuses to use environmentally friendly parts. They arent asking for the impossible and if it looks like they are singling out Apple then its because Apple is literally one of the last major companies to adopt a policy of not buying parts or recycle the things that contain these things. If Dell and pretty much every other major PC maker can use these parts and recycle then I would love to see someone try to explain why Apple is somehow incapable of doing the same. Its like if people bitched about cars polluting less but getting the same performance and having virtually the same price, do some people just like to screw the environemnt?
They could blame Apple for going with those companies, that would put pressure on Apple to switch to a greener company and would put pressure on those companies to be greener themselves so they please Apple.
And yes a computer will never been totally environmentally friendly but people are managing to COMPLETELY miss the point of what they want. Other companies like Dell have stopped using parts that have certain very harmful "ingredients" since there are more than enough substitutes that work just as well and dont harm the environment. The only thing stopping other companies is cost and laziness, and considering the premium people pay on macs its actually rather absurd that Apple refuses to use environmentally friendly parts. They arent asking for the impossible and if it looks like they are singling out Apple then its because Apple is literally one of the last major companies to adopt a policy of not buying parts or recycle the things that contain these things. If Dell and pretty much every other major PC maker can use these parts and recycle then I would love to see someone try to explain why Apple is somehow incapable of doing the same. Its like if people bitched about cars polluting less but getting the same performance and having virtually the same price, do some people just like to screw the environemnt?
Prom1
Oct 12, 12:25 PM
Regardless if its 5% or should be 10%. This is an initiative that Bono has been after for over a decade.
For most ppl that dont like U2's music, they sure know who they are and respect Bono for his philantropic efforts.
Motorola is doing the same with the RAZR v3i model.
Kinda said how a passionate music artist must make this initiative when countries with HUGE sums of cash prefer military spending in their budgets (Canada included) yet not for world equality for medicine.
This would be a HUGE BONUS for Apple. I'll be buying one for my wife it its true and available in Canada.:D
For most ppl that dont like U2's music, they sure know who they are and respect Bono for his philantropic efforts.
Motorola is doing the same with the RAZR v3i model.
Kinda said how a passionate music artist must make this initiative when countries with HUGE sums of cash prefer military spending in their budgets (Canada included) yet not for world equality for medicine.
This would be a HUGE BONUS for Apple. I'll be buying one for my wife it its true and available in Canada.:D
milo
Aug 28, 03:20 PM
There's no chance apple is releasing MBP's tomorrow. There are too many things pointing towards early/mid-Sept.
There's no question that apple will not *ship* merom machines tomorrow. But there's nothing stopping them from making the announcement and taking preorders.
There's no question that apple will not *ship* merom machines tomorrow. But there's nothing stopping them from making the announcement and taking preorders.
ctachme
Sep 26, 08:30 AM
Agrhhh... why does Apple have to be so stupid? Do they not know that there are vast areas here in the US where Cingular doesn't support?
Why the hell can't they just sell an unlocked phone and just let us choose providers that actually have service where we live? I really hope someone finds a way to hack these phones and make them carrier-independant! :mad:
Why the hell can't they just sell an unlocked phone and just let us choose providers that actually have service where we live? I really hope someone finds a way to hack these phones and make them carrier-independant! :mad:
lowonthe456
Mar 22, 02:24 PM
I wanted to get a 15" MBP, but more and more they look like bags of hurt :(
Maybe imac is the way to go
Maybe imac is the way to go
LarryC
Apr 30, 11:04 PM
Two words: Future-proofing.
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
milescortez
Mar 22, 05:23 PM
GeekBoner here.
AdeFowler
Mar 3, 07:00 AM
In related news:
BBC News - Android hit by rogue app viruses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633923
Ouch
BBC News - Android hit by rogue app viruses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633923
Ouch
mdntcallr
Sep 14, 12:38 AM
sounds like a nice starter level phone/ipod.
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
Multimedia
Sep 12, 06:31 PM
just encoded 5 secs of video using the quicktime default export for ipod... now the default is 640 x 480 that plays too.Please explain exactly how from where you did that. I am still trying with handbrake and EyeTV. The EyeTV2 export is supposed to be connected to the QuickTime but the iPod default is not H.264 640x480 in the EyetV2 Export windows.
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
chasemac
Aug 24, 02:59 AM
What about their audio cards?
I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
What about their audio cards?
OMO. They are still the best sound cards for PC today.:) Non Pro audio that is.
I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
What about their audio cards?
OMO. They are still the best sound cards for PC today.:) Non Pro audio that is.
