bloodycape
Aug 24, 02:34 AM
What?:)
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
This is true I read this a while back and it was brought up today on a d.a.p site i frequent. Creatives TravelDock 900 speakers have an ipod shuffle connected to it on the box.
Kind of an interesting history note of digital audio players made back in 2004.
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.90
mBox
May 4, 11:02 AM
I'm beginning to think that most Apple users are just spoiled brats :P
Don't like...don't buy it :)
Don't like...don't buy it :)
leroypants
Apr 19, 10:34 AM
If Samsung breached the supply contract, they would be sued again. The difference is that in the infringement suit, Apple has a moderate case and the remedy if they win will be $100M-$2B range. In a contract infringment, Apple would have an ironclad case, and the remedy would be $100B-$300B-- in other words, Samsung would become a division of Apple.
Could you please link the contract (since you seem to know everything about it), and out of curiosity where did you get your law degree?
Could you please link the contract (since you seem to know everything about it), and out of curiosity where did you get your law degree?
.jpeg "Light tags stevens michelle")
iansilv
Mar 23, 05:08 PM
I kind of like the idea of being able to see how piss-poor the police services are in an area. The app only shows how ineffectively these check points are setup.
genovelle
Nov 13, 04:36 PM
The rules have been carefully spelled out enough that this same reasoning for rejections has been restated atleast 20 times in the last 6 months online. If these are cream of the crop developers I would think that they have someone on their staff who they pay to vet these apps and look for violations before they submit them. If they would have just visited these threads over the last few months, their frustration could have been prevented if they didn't feel like reading the rules themselves. Apple should have really keep them under the no discloser agreements like they had before.
Just think. If I were an Apple competitor, I could offer huge amounts of money to a developer or even one of their employees, to publicly leave Apple and berate their system. In return I will pay you ten times your current pay and help you start a company that I will support by marketing your programs on my platform. Microsoft has been said to have made these types of offers.
Just think. If I were an Apple competitor, I could offer huge amounts of money to a developer or even one of their employees, to publicly leave Apple and berate their system. In return I will pay you ten times your current pay and help you start a company that I will support by marketing your programs on my platform. Microsoft has been said to have made these types of offers.
Balooba
Nov 13, 07:07 PM
Rogue Amoeba, stop behaving like grumpy children. We love your apps and need updates and continued development! Change the graphics and get over it.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
vouder17
Sep 15, 05:34 PM
3MP iPod camera phone?!?!? i'll be the first one in line to have it:p
there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.
Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800
there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.
Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:59 AM
They don't care about us, they just want our money, like any business.
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried. It's already reached bottom.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried. It's already reached bottom.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
kiljoy616
Apr 11, 02:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
steve_hill4
Sep 9, 10:35 AM
The last revision of the iMac G5 (the one with the iSight) had the option of 2.5GB of RAM. It had 512MB built-in and you could option a 2GB stick for the 1 open slot it had.
That 2GB of course cost an arm and a leg...
That's right actually, it was 512MB soldered and a single slot wasn't it? I also thought for a short time after the new C2D iMacs were announced and it said max. 3GB, 1GB would be soldered and there would be a single 2GB slot or two 1GB slots.
Some good points have been raised on the 64-bit OS front. Since Leopard will fully support 64-bit down to the kernal, I would hope this first 64-bit Intel iMac would benefit as much as the Mac Pro.
However, does anyone know for sure whether a) the OS X on the new iMacs is 64-bit and/or b) whether OS X on Intel has even been translated to 64-bit, (thinking Mac Pro here too)? It's something I have yet to bother looking into, but any answers here would be appreciated.
That 2GB of course cost an arm and a leg...
That's right actually, it was 512MB soldered and a single slot wasn't it? I also thought for a short time after the new C2D iMacs were announced and it said max. 3GB, 1GB would be soldered and there would be a single 2GB slot or two 1GB slots.
Some good points have been raised on the 64-bit OS front. Since Leopard will fully support 64-bit down to the kernal, I would hope this first 64-bit Intel iMac would benefit as much as the Mac Pro.
However, does anyone know for sure whether a) the OS X on the new iMacs is 64-bit and/or b) whether OS X on Intel has even been translated to 64-bit, (thinking Mac Pro here too)? It's something I have yet to bother looking into, but any answers here would be appreciated.
aristotle
Nov 13, 11:26 PM
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 04:05 PM
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
yg17
Apr 25, 07:36 AM
Hmm and my opinion of Ivy League schools goes down more.
Shows that many who go in and come out of there are unethical. Explains why so much wrong with the country because it is lead by the unethical people.
It's not brains that get you into ivy league schools, it's money. See George W Bush, and if our friend Don here gets into Harvard, I think he will be another example of that.
Of course, I don't believe for a second that Don has the money or connections to get into Harvard. I think he's some poor lonely kid sitting in his parents' basement acting like Mr. Tough Guy on the internet because it makes him feel like a better person, when in reality, it doesn't.
Shows that many who go in and come out of there are unethical. Explains why so much wrong with the country because it is lead by the unethical people.
It's not brains that get you into ivy league schools, it's money. See George W Bush, and if our friend Don here gets into Harvard, I think he will be another example of that.
Of course, I don't believe for a second that Don has the money or connections to get into Harvard. I think he's some poor lonely kid sitting in his parents' basement acting like Mr. Tough Guy on the internet because it makes him feel like a better person, when in reality, it doesn't.
milo
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
In order to receive the movie from the movie store it would stream to the "box".Having a HD would allow you to save the movie.
AND!!
Later in your room you could stream it from the "Box" to your computer :-)
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't it just download straight to the computer in the first place? That's where it's stored, that's where it's streamed from. You just added an extra step and made it that much more complicated.
AND!!
Later in your room you could stream it from the "Box" to your computer :-)
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't it just download straight to the computer in the first place? That's where it's stored, that's where it's streamed from. You just added an extra step and made it that much more complicated.
afrowq
Mar 22, 09:19 PM
apple doesn't sell as many mac pro's so it's at the end of the list
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
MattyMac
Sep 15, 06:43 PM
I'll be very tempted if it has;
3MP
All the display info in the latest iPods
BT
4-8 GB
Full iLife intergration (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address book (with pictures), Mail)
Earphones (Pref BT and acts as hands free)
Desire
3G?
iChat with BT for Audio?
Widgets?
WiFi
IR remote feature
Light / Flash
Wow...that would be ideal! Mucho $$ too.
3MP
All the display info in the latest iPods
BT
4-8 GB
Full iLife intergration (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address book (with pictures), Mail)
Earphones (Pref BT and acts as hands free)
Desire
3G?
iChat with BT for Audio?
Widgets?
WiFi
IR remote feature
Light / Flash
Wow...that would be ideal! Mucho $$ too.
BRLawyer
Apr 28, 03:59 PM
So, are we supposed to be proud about this? And if so, why has the same 'accomplishment' earned Microsoft the 'M$' reputation? Double morals?
Illegal and abusive monopolistic practices, as opposed to a legitimate market domination based on innovation and organic growth.
Illegal and abusive monopolistic practices, as opposed to a legitimate market domination based on innovation and organic growth.
Yvan256
Sep 14, 11:42 AM
Any chance we'll see an Apple widescreen H.264/AAC camcorder there? And how about an iPod dock connector/cable to use an iPod for storage to keep the costs down (and sell more iPods)?
cwt1nospam
Jan 12, 09:21 AM
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
For anyone who might buy into the above crap:
Many "virus writers" are script kiddies. They don't necessarily know much if anything about the Mac, so they assume that the virus they're using will work the same as on a PC. That's why they'll "make a message just for Mac users" even though it won't do anything. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't ever any Trojans for the Mac. There have been a few in the past and there certainly will be some in the future. There's just no need for antivirus software to detect these until and unless one or more of them become successful AND it takes Apple significantly longer to come out with a system update than it does the AV vendors to detect the threat and create a definition for it.
Why significantly longer? Because AV software costs you time and money while it slows your system down and potentially creates new vectors for viruses to attack your system! Software updates are free, don't slow your system down or make it more vulnerable, and unless they're long delayed the odds are excellent that you will not see the attack on your system before receiving the update.
This all applies to IOS too, except that because IOS is locked down to the point where the only way to get an application is through the app store it is practically impossible to create and transmit a trojan, let a lone a virus.
For anyone who might buy into the above crap:
Many "virus writers" are script kiddies. They don't necessarily know much if anything about the Mac, so they assume that the virus they're using will work the same as on a PC. That's why they'll "make a message just for Mac users" even though it won't do anything. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't ever any Trojans for the Mac. There have been a few in the past and there certainly will be some in the future. There's just no need for antivirus software to detect these until and unless one or more of them become successful AND it takes Apple significantly longer to come out with a system update than it does the AV vendors to detect the threat and create a definition for it.
Why significantly longer? Because AV software costs you time and money while it slows your system down and potentially creates new vectors for viruses to attack your system! Software updates are free, don't slow your system down or make it more vulnerable, and unless they're long delayed the odds are excellent that you will not see the attack on your system before receiving the update.
This all applies to IOS too, except that because IOS is locked down to the point where the only way to get an application is through the app store it is practically impossible to create and transmit a trojan, let a lone a virus.
kenaustus
Aug 31, 04:49 PM
With the competition getting ready to ship Core 2s I think this is where Apple is going on the 12th. Their inventories will be worked down with back to school buying and they are not going to let the competition get that far ahead of them.
On the iPod situation, if you are looking at a Palm type enhancement then I think it will be based on a stripped down version of OS X, allowing Apple to do a good job with iCal, some of iLife, Address Book, etc. The benefit of the partial OS X is that 3rd party developers who have come up with some very good apps could migrate them to an iPod version with (hopefully) relative ease. That could generate some excitement in the market that would also leave MS in the dust with their MP3. Could be very interesting - and would also explain the delay in releasing new models.
On the movie side, I would look for a feature that allows you to move an actual DVD to the video iPod. Would be great for long flights when going on a business trip - especially if you're in cattle car with not enough room to open your notebook.
On the iPod situation, if you are looking at a Palm type enhancement then I think it will be based on a stripped down version of OS X, allowing Apple to do a good job with iCal, some of iLife, Address Book, etc. The benefit of the partial OS X is that 3rd party developers who have come up with some very good apps could migrate them to an iPod version with (hopefully) relative ease. That could generate some excitement in the market that would also leave MS in the dust with their MP3. Could be very interesting - and would also explain the delay in releasing new models.
On the movie side, I would look for a feature that allows you to move an actual DVD to the video iPod. Would be great for long flights when going on a business trip - especially if you're in cattle car with not enough room to open your notebook.
theman5725
Sep 26, 09:10 PM
While on the topic of the iPhone, I am curious about video playback. It may be a lot to ask, but the Chocolate has it and Apple is competing with that and other media phones.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 5, 12:40 PM
No one else has yet mentioned that the Airport Extreme is currently reflecting a 1-3 week shipping period (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=B842E400&nplm=M8799LL%2FA), while the Airport Express (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=7D88DA55&nplm=M9470LL%2FA) still says it will ship within 24 hours on the Apple Store Online. It would seem that it is the Extreme and not the Express to be getting the update.
That makes sense if Apple is going 802.11n-draft. The Extreme needs -N support so the mystery box has something to talk to.
That makes sense if Apple is going 802.11n-draft. The Extreme needs -N support so the mystery box has something to talk to.
Bibulous
Sep 14, 09:29 AM
Aperture update - definite
MacBook Pro C2D - likely
iPod photo accessory - maybe
Cinema displays - not likely
iPhone - no way
MacBook Pro C2D - likely
iPod photo accessory - maybe
Cinema displays - not likely
iPhone - no way
jz1492
Nov 13, 05:42 PM
I don't see Apple as the client. After all, they didn't ask for the app. They didn't provide any kind of spec, or put out an RFP, or specify any guidelines as to what it should do. To me they are more of an unwanted kibbutzer looking over my shoulder. On more than one occasion I've had Apple reject updates that did things my customers really wanted, for dumb reasons (usually reasons that they could have asserted for the 20 updates I did prior to that point).
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)