rxse7en
Jul 14, 10:37 AM
Please! Let the Merom be overclockable in the next MBP or at least make it a CPU-swappable socket! If not, I may consider just getting a new Mac Pro that will be. Would hate to spend $3k on a new 17" with a stagnant (yet potent) CPU when every other Mac system out there will be overclockable or swappable. Any thoughts?
B
B
Stevamundo
Apr 28, 06:02 PM
Microsoft is still doing very well. They're making the best products they ever have done and as a customer I am very pleased with all of my Microsoft purchases.
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Really? I mean really? Zune? You forgot to write down Vista too kid. LOL!
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Really? I mean really? Zune? You forgot to write down Vista too kid. LOL!
JAT
Mar 30, 12:20 PM
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
iEric
Oct 12, 03:13 PM
oh is bono releasing a new album soon?
i read this article that takes a look at bono's charity giving at times it occurs and it seems that every time he does something like this, he is nearing an album release.
but otherwise a very nice contribution to fight against aids.
i read this article that takes a look at bono's charity giving at times it occurs and it seems that every time he does something like this, he is nearing an album release.
but otherwise a very nice contribution to fight against aids.
Quadra610
Apr 25, 01:14 PM
Translated: Next macbook pro will be a macbook air. MBA will cease to exist as a discrete product line. Happening late fall 2011 (if we're lucky).
Eggtastic
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
not cool. i was hoping to sell my 06' MBP to upgrade to hopefully an updated MBA line. but now this means i have to wait more...
Stella
Apr 14, 12:23 PM
I shall try and find the link again.. obviously, with a USB3 -> TB adapter the IO speed will be decreased down to USB3 levels.
Personally, I see little point of USB3 -> TB connectivity since they'll probably be far more USB3 hard disks etc available ( and cheaper ) than TB - and there's no benefit at the end of the day to link USB3 to a TB device.
So where exactly did you find these?
Thunderbolt = 10 Gbps (right now, will scale even larger in the future)
USB 3.0 = 5 Gbps
There will never be a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adapter, there will be Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter.
Don't worry, with Thunderbolt you essentially get an endless amount of options of ports. FireWire, USB 1-3, eSata, etc. It's only a matter of time until these adapters enter the market.
Personally, I see little point of USB3 -> TB connectivity since they'll probably be far more USB3 hard disks etc available ( and cheaper ) than TB - and there's no benefit at the end of the day to link USB3 to a TB device.
So where exactly did you find these?
Thunderbolt = 10 Gbps (right now, will scale even larger in the future)
USB 3.0 = 5 Gbps
There will never be a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adapter, there will be Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter.
Don't worry, with Thunderbolt you essentially get an endless amount of options of ports. FireWire, USB 1-3, eSata, etc. It's only a matter of time until these adapters enter the market.
Sodner
Apr 19, 12:54 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 04:29 PM
The very fact that all laptops contain mercury in their displays, the very fact that apple is one of the only computer companies that no longer sells mercury-laden CRT screens (As mentioned by another in an earlier post Thank you DELL!) makes this a complete and utter wank.
maclaptop
Apr 19, 07:44 AM
Apple is pathetic.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
iMacZealot
Sep 18, 12:48 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
I think the two of them are hard to compare. In this arguement, I'm not advocatinig CDMA, I'm just trying to show that there's no need to bash them as they are hard to compare.
CDMA and TDMA both get the job done; they divide up bandwidth so that multiple users can use a base station at the same time. They way they do that is just different. That cliche phrase of "comparing apples to oranges" applies to the age old question of GSM vs. CDMA.
I think the two of them are hard to compare. In this arguement, I'm not advocatinig CDMA, I'm just trying to show that there's no need to bash them as they are hard to compare.
CDMA and TDMA both get the job done; they divide up bandwidth so that multiple users can use a base station at the same time. They way they do that is just different. That cliche phrase of "comparing apples to oranges" applies to the age old question of GSM vs. CDMA.
munkery
Apr 12, 08:12 PM
Leopard:
Snow Leopard:
Thanks GGJ.
What about the security sensitive files in /Library? Such as /Library/InputManagers, /Library/Extensions, /Library/LaunchDaemons, /Library/Security, and etc?
I am pretty sure these only have system with write privileges. No?
Snow Leopard:
Thanks GGJ.
What about the security sensitive files in /Library? Such as /Library/InputManagers, /Library/Extensions, /Library/LaunchDaemons, /Library/Security, and etc?
I am pretty sure these only have system with write privileges. No?
Temporal
Apr 20, 12:01 PM
Don't rely on encryption to protect you in any way. The police can crack it, as can hackers, and they can simply demand with a court order that you give them the password. Then you're forced to essentially testify against yourself. No, pleading the 5th won't help.
That's actually not true in any case I have read about. You can't compel encryption passwords.
That's actually not true in any case I have read about. You can't compel encryption passwords.
min_t
Aug 23, 07:38 PM
There's more to this than anyone here as realised I believe.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
I was thinking the same thing. Creative was asking for a cease order to stop deliveries from Asia. There must be something on that super transport leaving Shanghai harbor last week.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
I was thinking the same thing. Creative was asking for a cease order to stop deliveries from Asia. There must be something on that super transport leaving Shanghai harbor last week.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:07 PM
If Apple kills the MacPro it is there own fault. I can member when they used to be affordable at $1499 and now they are completely out of my price range for a new computer. I have been using an 867 G4 for TEN YEARS and will finally upgrade to an iMac with more power then 3 867's put together.
1 $1499
Intel� Core� i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD Radeon� HD 6850 Graphics
Sounds great to me!:)
My dream iMac would be:
Intel� Core� i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD 6950
Redesigned cooling! Those things get HOT
1 $1499
Intel� Core� i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD Radeon� HD 6850 Graphics
Sounds great to me!:)
My dream iMac would be:
Intel� Core� i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD 6950
Redesigned cooling! Those things get HOT
guet
Nov 14, 01:53 AM
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
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.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
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.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 10:37 PM
hey, don't knock the cube! you can get a dual 1.6Ghz G4 cube nowadays :rolleyes:
KingCrimson
Apr 22, 04:25 PM
I really hope this happens but I have a feeling that it will be hobbled in some way. If it runs from an iTunes master copy of songs then it might preclude people uploading music that has been ripped from CDs or bought somewhere else (like Amazon).
This. Or songs ripped from Youtube videos. Sorry Apple just lost my business IF it's going to be based on the iTunes-verified master copy.
This. Or songs ripped from Youtube videos. Sorry Apple just lost my business IF it's going to be based on the iTunes-verified master copy.
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
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.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
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.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
muxbox
Nov 13, 03:35 PM
Apple set up a review process to control the quality of the apps hitting the app store.
Then they fill it with junk anyway.
We have tried to create a serious simple life tool called VoCal - Voice Calendar and after months of silly standards from apple, and review rules that make it hard for us to provide a good service to our customers, not to mention the length of time to get an app reviewed, we have decided to pull 90% of our efforts away from Apple development and work on the Windows Platform where freedom is the key. We will launch our new innovative software for windows gamers very soon.
Yes it was nice of Apple to invite us to create apps and they have shared the wealth of the success but the amount of frustration at the review process and Apples non common sensical rules have never helped. Their ability to make people jump the queues in both reviews and in ordering tickets to the events were the final straw for us.
Apple make gorgeous products yet working with them can be an ugly experience.
Then they fill it with junk anyway.
We have tried to create a serious simple life tool called VoCal - Voice Calendar and after months of silly standards from apple, and review rules that make it hard for us to provide a good service to our customers, not to mention the length of time to get an app reviewed, we have decided to pull 90% of our efforts away from Apple development and work on the Windows Platform where freedom is the key. We will launch our new innovative software for windows gamers very soon.
Yes it was nice of Apple to invite us to create apps and they have shared the wealth of the success but the amount of frustration at the review process and Apples non common sensical rules have never helped. Their ability to make people jump the queues in both reviews and in ordering tickets to the events were the final straw for us.
Apple make gorgeous products yet working with them can be an ugly experience.
G4er?
Mar 22, 08:44 PM
Next Mac will be whatever the largest screen they make and fastest chip they have whenever this one dies.
Since you can only get the fastest processor with the largest screen your choice will be easy.
Since you can only get the fastest processor with the largest screen your choice will be easy.
peharri
Sep 5, 03:09 PM
OH PLEEASE let it be the phone...i need a new one now!!!
God I hope not. If Apple announces a phone, and I have shares, I'll sell them. Apple Phone = Apple Irrelevance.
Anyway, I think too much of the focus is on the technical details of this mysterious Airport Express box. I'm wondering if Apple's "Big New Thing" isn't so much the gadgets, but the notion of entertainment moving from being something you have shovelled to you from your cable/satellite guy, to a true a la carte system, delivered via the Internet.
What's interesting about the rumours are that they point at products and services that build an infrastructure for something, not products that are particularly interesting by themselves. I can stream media to TVs already (albeit with cables.) I can buy movies, hell, the pr0n industry has pretty much pioneered in this realm and made the concept provable. Less controvertially, there have been attempts to sell movies online serveral times over the last few years. These are all products that already exist.
Apple's products may well actually turn this into a general collection of concepts into a major new drive, in much the same way as DVDs have changed the way we watch TV, and DVRs, and, indeed, twenty-thirty years ago, cable and satellite did.
It'll be interesting to see if they succeed. Don't be surprised if most of the coverage after the event is negative. The real test will be in the coming years.
God I hope not. If Apple announces a phone, and I have shares, I'll sell them. Apple Phone = Apple Irrelevance.
Anyway, I think too much of the focus is on the technical details of this mysterious Airport Express box. I'm wondering if Apple's "Big New Thing" isn't so much the gadgets, but the notion of entertainment moving from being something you have shovelled to you from your cable/satellite guy, to a true a la carte system, delivered via the Internet.
What's interesting about the rumours are that they point at products and services that build an infrastructure for something, not products that are particularly interesting by themselves. I can stream media to TVs already (albeit with cables.) I can buy movies, hell, the pr0n industry has pretty much pioneered in this realm and made the concept provable. Less controvertially, there have been attempts to sell movies online serveral times over the last few years. These are all products that already exist.
Apple's products may well actually turn this into a general collection of concepts into a major new drive, in much the same way as DVDs have changed the way we watch TV, and DVRs, and, indeed, twenty-thirty years ago, cable and satellite did.
It'll be interesting to see if they succeed. Don't be surprised if most of the coverage after the event is negative. The real test will be in the coming years.
chilipie
Sep 12, 02:47 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
miketcool
Sep 4, 06:55 PM
Sounds more viable for video then a 3 inch screen on a portable hard drive.