Spiritgreywolf
Apr 30, 04:38 PM
Okay, all the new processor stuff - awesome. Wonderful that it will have some super-fast ports.
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
macnews
Sep 20, 03:52 AM
... and yet there is a conspicuous lack of a self-congratulatory press release from Amazon about their sales numbers. I suspect that despite Unbox starting with 2000 movies, they've sold less than 125,000 movies.
Unibox may not have SOLD that many but how many did they rent? Dollar figure and units.
I keep saying Apple is making a mistake by not offering rentals.
Unibox may not have SOLD that many but how many did they rent? Dollar figure and units.
I keep saying Apple is making a mistake by not offering rentals.
roadbloc
Mar 29, 01:17 PM
And where in the first post from the OP did they mention 'in the Finder'?
Doesn't take a genius to work out does it? I understood him, as did plenty of others. If you wish to pointlessly nitpick in hope to make OS X's lack of basic but useful features sound negligible then so be it.
Finder lacks cut and paste. It bugs me at times too.
Doesn't take a genius to work out does it? I understood him, as did plenty of others. If you wish to pointlessly nitpick in hope to make OS X's lack of basic but useful features sound negligible then so be it.
Finder lacks cut and paste. It bugs me at times too.
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
Al Coholic
Apr 25, 06:55 PM
Well crap.
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
linux2mac
May 3, 11:19 AM
At this price point and with these features - they may push even more customers away from the mac pro and towards the iMac. Even for some pretty heavy lifting, it's going to be a beast of a machine.
I can say from experience that the i7 SB is a wonderful CPU. It competes with or beats the top end 6 core processors in apps that are not heavily multi-threaded.
It's pretty nice that those dell 30 inchers are almost exactly the same size as the iMac.
Absolutely. If going Mac Pro route you still need 3 ACD's. Going iMac route you just need two ACD's. I still doubt I will need the power of i7 for my PHP/MySQL coding but I will take it. :)
I can say from experience that the i7 SB is a wonderful CPU. It competes with or beats the top end 6 core processors in apps that are not heavily multi-threaded.
It's pretty nice that those dell 30 inchers are almost exactly the same size as the iMac.
Absolutely. If going Mac Pro route you still need 3 ACD's. Going iMac route you just need two ACD's. I still doubt I will need the power of i7 for my PHP/MySQL coding but I will take it. :)
3N16MA
Mar 30, 12:12 PM
What about "Burger Store" ?
Is anyone currently using the term Burger Store? Has anyone built a brand using the term Burger Store? Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
Is anyone currently using the term Burger Store? Has anyone built a brand using the term Burger Store? Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
Lesser Evets
Mar 22, 01:17 PM
Pity they didn't slim down the iMac by choppin' the chin (assuming this rumor is true). Can't wait to see what they release. The old "smaller iMac" rumor priced for the "mass market" kept me interested in the next iMac update--hope to see something trimmed for the "mass market".
Figured iMacs would update in April.
Figured iMacs would update in April.
iamrawr
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
dooo iittt!!! :D so excited to get my next mbp 3-5 years from now.
Donz0r
Sep 13, 09:45 PM
There are a lot of sound business reasons for Apple to release an iPhone. But the biggest reason is that Steve must have a cell phone and you know he probably hates the industrial design and functionality.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
doodosh
Sep 12, 07:39 PM
I was really curious if the 5.5 G iPod has the same back finish as the U2 special edition. That would make things a lot better imo
iStudentUK
Mar 29, 11:45 AM
I think they need to learn how to do math. How can you have an 18.8% cumulative annual growth rate when your market share goes down from 15.7% to 15.3%?
More people buy smartphones. So Apple could sell more iPhones and have a lower market share.
Looks like they predict a 20% year on year growth for smartphones, which is quite high!
More people buy smartphones. So Apple could sell more iPhones and have a lower market share.
Looks like they predict a 20% year on year growth for smartphones, which is quite high!
fswmacguy
Apr 4, 12:35 PM
Not sure where you guys are getting your information.
In Virginia, to posses an Armed Security Guard license, you must take a 40-hour (five-day) course.
There's a place where I live that does the training. They use M4A1 rifles and M9 pistols in the course, which are both required for certification as an armed security guard.
In Virginia, to posses an Armed Security Guard license, you must take a 40-hour (five-day) course.
There's a place where I live that does the training. They use M4A1 rifles and M9 pistols in the course, which are both required for certification as an armed security guard.
duervo
Mar 23, 06:12 PM
I wonder how many who posted here in favor of removing these apps, are also supporters of wikileaks? i'm sure it's a significant number. how ironic.
How about you duervo, you a wikileaks fan? hmm?
The true irony here is your blatant assumption that is based on nothing more than a "gut feeling".
How about you duervo, you a wikileaks fan? hmm?
The true irony here is your blatant assumption that is based on nothing more than a "gut feeling".
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 :)
chukronos
Sep 16, 08:38 PM
I am not sure if it is a smart move for apple to enter into the cell phone market. There is a lot of competition and I think resources could be used better elsewhere. But it seems Apple knows a lot more about it than me.
McGiord
Mar 29, 01:30 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
roland.g
Apr 20, 10:15 AM
This is total BS. We should have been informed of this and a way to turn it off or delete the file on our own. As for the poster above who stated it only goes to your computer, I highly doubt it. This is another big brother tracking honest citizens. Hope a class action does happen. I will definitely sign on!
You need to get off the grid dude. Get rid of it all. Just disappear. Don't even write your name in your underwear. Get a fake ID under the name Topsy Krets.
You need to get off the grid dude. Get rid of it all. Just disappear. Don't even write your name in your underwear. Get a fake ID under the name Topsy Krets.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 02:42 AM
I volunteered only to further my college applications. I really couldn't give a crap about the people my work supposedly helped. All I care about is that it helped me.
I don't view myself as cold hearted, I view myself as being a realist. This "let's be nice to everyone" crap has turned 95% of society into blithering retarded bleeding hearts. I only care about people who I can use to further myself, or those who have genuinely done something caring for me (family); otherwise you are completely expendable to me (take note anyone who works under me in a decade). I do not feel that society's rules apply to me, because I simply know that I am better than many of the people in society; the rules (including speed limits) are there for lesser folk. Look at our pop culture, it shows how stupid most are. What you call morally and ethically bankrupt, I call opportunistic and motivated.
For proclaiming yourself as a realist, you live in quite the imaginary land if you think you can disregard laws and then think you won't have to face some very real consequences.
Lesser folk...who do you think you are? Thank god my 16 year old brother does not have this mindset as I would have to smack some sense into him
Then again, it must be nice being born into a fortunistic household (harvard parents, judges in family, etc) in terms of monetary means only with no doing of your own. But of course, that mere act of being born earned you that right to be better than everyone else. Got it.
I don't view myself as cold hearted, I view myself as being a realist. This "let's be nice to everyone" crap has turned 95% of society into blithering retarded bleeding hearts. I only care about people who I can use to further myself, or those who have genuinely done something caring for me (family); otherwise you are completely expendable to me (take note anyone who works under me in a decade). I do not feel that society's rules apply to me, because I simply know that I am better than many of the people in society; the rules (including speed limits) are there for lesser folk. Look at our pop culture, it shows how stupid most are. What you call morally and ethically bankrupt, I call opportunistic and motivated.
For proclaiming yourself as a realist, you live in quite the imaginary land if you think you can disregard laws and then think you won't have to face some very real consequences.
Lesser folk...who do you think you are? Thank god my 16 year old brother does not have this mindset as I would have to smack some sense into him
Then again, it must be nice being born into a fortunistic household (harvard parents, judges in family, etc) in terms of monetary means only with no doing of your own. But of course, that mere act of being born earned you that right to be better than everyone else. Got it.
sinsin07
Mar 23, 05:08 PM
Drunk driver checkpoints are the biggest law enforcement scam being perpetrated on the public at large. These checkpoints do no better than roving patrols but cops do them because they can hassle the public without probable cause and bust them for other minor infractions. They also more likely to have them in poor neighborhoods where people may be late paying their insurance or vehicle fees. They make big money from impounding poor people's cars.
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
LOL You sound bitter. How many times have you been busted?
They pad the bottom line of the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex and so that's why they have them. It has NOTHING to do with justice.
LOL You sound bitter. How many times have you been busted?
bloodycape
Aug 31, 02:48 PM
I did not look at all the post so I dunno if this was posted but this interesting.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2006/db20060831_806225.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2006/db20060831_806225.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
Oryan
Aug 23, 09:52 PM
[...] Why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Creative's market cap is only $500 million versus Apple's $57 Billion, so they probably wouldn't have had a problem doing it.
Creative's market cap is only $500 million versus Apple's $57 Billion, so they probably wouldn't have had a problem doing it.
pondosinatra
Mar 23, 08:52 AM
Well unless a non-glossy screen is an option I won't be getting one.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
mazola
Sep 19, 03:34 PM
... a final annual download number of 125,550.