*LTD*
Apr 3, 09:27 AM
"Delightful."
This is the key word here.
Apple's priority is to delight the user. Now "delight" invokes a lot things - some emotional, tactile, things which might even be disparate.
But when you apply that priority to consumer tech, it brings together a lot of requirements to achieve this - how the device must feel; how it must look - say, on a stylish glass table or beside modern sculpture; how the UI should function; colours, fonts . . . the list goes on.
This is why Apple is so successful. They don't focus on bringing to market a competing device that ranks high on spec sheets. They simply focus on how to delight the user.
Thus, you get something like the iPad. While the competition still can't figure it out. Priorities, people . . . it's all about priorities.
This is the key word here.
Apple's priority is to delight the user. Now "delight" invokes a lot things - some emotional, tactile, things which might even be disparate.
But when you apply that priority to consumer tech, it brings together a lot of requirements to achieve this - how the device must feel; how it must look - say, on a stylish glass table or beside modern sculpture; how the UI should function; colours, fonts . . . the list goes on.
This is why Apple is so successful. They don't focus on bringing to market a competing device that ranks high on spec sheets. They simply focus on how to delight the user.
Thus, you get something like the iPad. While the competition still can't figure it out. Priorities, people . . . it's all about priorities.
r.j.s
Apr 27, 10:22 AM
That being said, I'm saying Apple should be granted a trademark on "App Store," but folks like us shouldn't be in violation of anything if we refer to other "app stores." Thing is, if the specifics of Apple's trademark request involves a digital/electronic store-front for selling digital applications, blah blah blah, it's fine that other business shouldn't refer to theirs w/ any form of that term w/in their digital/electronic store-fronts. BlackBerry Appworld is different enough from Apple's "App Store," where Amazon's "appstore" is just too close to Apple's.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
leekohler
Mar 24, 12:30 PM
Other Animal species have bisexual relationships so it must be natural.
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Umm..what? All of those things you just mentioned involve victimization of others. If two consenting adults want to be together, there is no harm done to them or you. There's nothing wrong or harmful about gay people. You're being utterly ridiculous.
BTW- you're talking to one. So I appreciate that you use fair comparisons, and stop comparing me and others like me to cannibals and murderers.
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Umm..what? All of those things you just mentioned involve victimization of others. If two consenting adults want to be together, there is no harm done to them or you. There's nothing wrong or harmful about gay people. You're being utterly ridiculous.
BTW- you're talking to one. So I appreciate that you use fair comparisons, and stop comparing me and others like me to cannibals and murderers.
Jack97
Apr 3, 04:13 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
aafuss1
Aug 29, 09:05 PM
X3000 is the integrated graphics component of GMA965. It basically solves the problem of the GMA950 graphics having no hardware T&L. Hence why UT2004 scores sit in the toilet on Mac mini's and Macbooks.
It'll never challenge a midrange Nvidia or ATI card, but it'll make the mini and macbook a reasonable enry level gaming platform, which it ain't now.
See http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/G965/index.htm
for some juicy technobabble.
M.
Totally agree-even low end PC's have at least a option for a add-in T&L capable card. Plus the GMA 3000 will do Core Image and Animation very well.
It'll never challenge a midrange Nvidia or ATI card, but it'll make the mini and macbook a reasonable enry level gaming platform, which it ain't now.
See http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/G965/index.htm
for some juicy technobabble.
M.
Totally agree-even low end PC's have at least a option for a add-in T&L capable card. Plus the GMA 3000 will do Core Image and Animation very well.
thesdx
Jan 12, 05:39 AM
I think "MacBook Air" sounds kinda cool, but not like something Apple would name a notebook. Who knows? It could be actually called this. Everyone was doubting the images of the fat Nano, thinking it couldn't possibly be true, and it came true. It could happen again.
Mike84
Apr 26, 01:41 PM
Therefore, Apple should have done one-click instead of 1-click to avoid licensing issues: ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
Lollypop
Aug 7, 04:48 AM
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
South Africa here, leave work-> go to gym and work up a sweat -> macrumors -> have dinner during keynote -> go to bed and have sweet dreams about new iphone! :D :D Life is good! LOL
South Africa here, leave work-> go to gym and work up a sweat -> macrumors -> have dinner during keynote -> go to bed and have sweet dreams about new iphone! :D :D Life is good! LOL
iphone3gs16gb
Jan 9, 04:35 PM
I was finally able to take my own pics of my just acquired '88 BMW 325is with M50B25TU engine swap. Darn this car is quick and handles so very well.
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4945.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4961.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4998.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_5027.jpg
That bimmer is my dream car...it looks so clean and well cared for
how much did you get it for?
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4945.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4961.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4998.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_5027.jpg
That bimmer is my dream car...it looks so clean and well cared for
how much did you get it for?
termite
Nov 15, 11:23 AM
My Wife and I each have a ton-o-spam to process, and leave our Mail.apps open all the time. Mail.app uses up a full core for a few minutes at a time (G5 2.0GHz). So occasionally the computer is fully loaded just from the suckiness of Mail.app. It's very distruptive to doing anything else on the computer -- watching videos becomes very pretty much impossible. The kids sometimes leave their Safaris pointed at some flashy website which, between the two kids, takes another half-core.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
Scottsdale
May 2, 07:48 PM
This shows exactly where Apple is headed with OSes. It is combining its iOS and OS X for consistency. I think one OS brand is the future Apple envisions whether we like it or not.
mduser63
Sep 1, 12:17 PM
AppleInsider is also now reporting (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2011) there will be a 23" iMac released.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:11 PM
Try again what ? It's not a word mark, it's a typed drawing, meaning you could trademark Pet Store too if it is a different drawing all together (different font, different shape, different color).
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
maverick808
Oct 24, 06:16 AM
The only stores I found still up were the US and Canada
US and Canada always go down last, they should be down in the next 10 minutes or so.
US and Canada always go down last, they should be down in the next 10 minutes or so.
HarryKeogh
Apr 19, 10:57 AM
I heard a rumor that these will not have a retina display or BluRay. No, seriously. They won't. My source is never wrong.
Maestro64
Nov 28, 04:03 PM
The Zune is now placing 48 position on Amazon, so not moving in a positive direction
theBB
Jul 18, 04:38 PM
About your claim that movies down take advantage of surround sound, you cannot be more wrong. Are you still watching VHS? Almost all DVDs using Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding and some better ones use DTS (which I love). These make a huge difference. Again, looking at the tech savvy customers that are early adopters, you have to think about movies like iRobot, Star Wars, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Spider Man 1 and 2, Bourne Supremacy, etc. These DVDs have impressive sound that cannot be expressed in stereo.
I know they are encoded with these formats, but very few DVDs actually take advantage of "directional" abilities of them. Yes, 5 speaker systems make you feel a bit more immersed in sound compared to just 2 small speakers on your TV. However, very few movies I watch gives me the feeling that something coming from behind just whizzed by me on the left side or some animal just roared or chirped on the right. Among these very few might be Bourne Supremacy or Star Wars, but liked I've said, a lot of movies just don't even bother working on that angle.
I know they are encoded with these formats, but very few DVDs actually take advantage of "directional" abilities of them. Yes, 5 speaker systems make you feel a bit more immersed in sound compared to just 2 small speakers on your TV. However, very few movies I watch gives me the feeling that something coming from behind just whizzed by me on the left side or some animal just roared or chirped on the right. Among these very few might be Bourne Supremacy or Star Wars, but liked I've said, a lot of movies just don't even bother working on that angle.
Buschmaster
Apr 3, 12:57 PM
Best ad since the Think Different campaign!
know-it-all5
Jul 18, 10:34 AM
Most people can't hear the difference between MP3 and AAC (or just don't care) and that's mainly because of low quality headphones but believe me if you're going to be selling movies you better have some decent resolution because people are going to plug their laptops/minis/media centers into their TV's and watch the movies. I was just watching some TV's I ripped from one of my DVD's last night and it looked ok with my 1080i 42" screen but I also tried playing one of my iTunes shows on my HD TV and it looked pretty crappy. I can understand watching TV shows on your CPU/iPod but if you go after movies they are going to be on the TV and the resolution better not be crap or else it'll be noticeable and nobody will buy it.
I agree with almost everything you just said. In my opinion movies are for bigger screens. I would like to be able to watch these on my tv rather than a smaller computer screen.
AND THEN there became psp. As we can see there are many people out buying psp formatted discs to watch movies. These movies only work on psp( I suppose you could hook it up to your computer,tv, but ultimately the average/common usage of these is for portable movie watching. Personally I find this rediculous and pointless, but if u look at many consumers, they seem to think otherwise. If apple can offer these via itunes to ipods there will be loads of people who will love this. With a bigger screened ipod one could compete with the psp Video market. Most people with a psp seem to have an ipod too (in my experiences), and if this works, expensive movies for a psp, may be swapped for cheap ipod video rentals.
I agree with almost everything you just said. In my opinion movies are for bigger screens. I would like to be able to watch these on my tv rather than a smaller computer screen.
AND THEN there became psp. As we can see there are many people out buying psp formatted discs to watch movies. These movies only work on psp( I suppose you could hook it up to your computer,tv, but ultimately the average/common usage of these is for portable movie watching. Personally I find this rediculous and pointless, but if u look at many consumers, they seem to think otherwise. If apple can offer these via itunes to ipods there will be loads of people who will love this. With a bigger screened ipod one could compete with the psp Video market. Most people with a psp seem to have an ipod too (in my experiences), and if this works, expensive movies for a psp, may be swapped for cheap ipod video rentals.
Roy Hobbs
Jan 2, 10:48 AM
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
I would love to see an iMac with a height adjustable screen. Dual c2d chips would be nice too. But I would rather have the height adjustment. My wife wants a 24 inch iMac but the hutch on her desk is 0.6 inches to short.
I would love to see an iMac with a height adjustable screen. Dual c2d chips would be nice too. But I would rather have the height adjustment. My wife wants a 24 inch iMac but the hutch on her desk is 0.6 inches to short.
TallManNY
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
My Mom's iMac is on its last legs. I think I got it for her in early 2006 and its screen is having some streaking problems. Otherwise it still works, but a lot of the latest Apple software won't load on it. Once the refresh is out, I'm handing down my early 2008 iMac. That will be a big upgrade for her. I will get a new one for myself. I'm excited!
I suspect I will do what I always do though, I will look into the Mac Pro, price it out, hesitate, and then go buy the iMac again. I can never justify the money for the Pro.
I suspect I will do what I always do though, I will look into the Mac Pro, price it out, hesitate, and then go buy the iMac again. I can never justify the money for the Pro.
xi mezmerize ix
Feb 23, 05:43 AM
I gave up on running Handbrake on my MacBook of the same vintage, but only because kept loosing RAM and making it difficult to work. I started running Handbrake on the Mid 2007 Mac Mini instead.
Haven't tried on the 2010 MBP that I just got. Might have to do that and see what we get...
Handbrake runs fine on my 2010 MBP.
Haven't tried on the 2010 MBP that I just got. Might have to do that and see what we get...
Handbrake runs fine on my 2010 MBP.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 01:39 PM
Knight is correct.
You can trademark a graphic that contains words, but have no rights to the actual words themselves.
It is you who needs an education on what a trademark actually is.
Lame
1. Pet Store was trademarked in one form or another.
2. Trying to argue that "App" was as much part of the lexicon as "pet" is ridiculous.
Objection overruled.
You can trademark a graphic that contains words, but have no rights to the actual words themselves.
It is you who needs an education on what a trademark actually is.
Lame
1. Pet Store was trademarked in one form or another.
2. Trying to argue that "App" was as much part of the lexicon as "pet" is ridiculous.
Objection overruled.
babyj
Nov 30, 12:46 PM
The quoted price is $299 which nominally translates to £157 + Apple stiff a brit tax + Government screw yer countryman tax.
I'm expecting £199.
If you think the iTV will do everything that a media centre pc circa(£800) does then i want to know what you are smoking?
It'll be a highly focused 1st release ie, everything in the Sept presentation + RSS feeds rebranded as clever channels, delivering usual junk off YouTube and Google video.
Games, ichat, online imovie editing, they'll be in patch releases, when you buy iTV 2 or never, cos Steve thinks those things suck ass on a TV.
I'm not expecting iTV to do everything a Media Centre PC does, but it needs to be able to do what the Xbox 360 can when connected to a PC running Media Centre. Whether that means it has to connect to a Mac or do it stand alone doesn't matter, but it needs to compete with the Microsoft solution.
If you've got an old PC (or you buy a cheap 2nd hand PC) you can run Media Centre on then it only costs £80 for Media Centre, £200 for an Xbox and £50 for a TV card.
I'd of already gone with Microsoft but I want to be able to download video on to my iPod - the different video formats make that a pain in the arse at the moment.
I'm expecting £199.
If you think the iTV will do everything that a media centre pc circa(£800) does then i want to know what you are smoking?
It'll be a highly focused 1st release ie, everything in the Sept presentation + RSS feeds rebranded as clever channels, delivering usual junk off YouTube and Google video.
Games, ichat, online imovie editing, they'll be in patch releases, when you buy iTV 2 or never, cos Steve thinks those things suck ass on a TV.
I'm not expecting iTV to do everything a Media Centre PC does, but it needs to be able to do what the Xbox 360 can when connected to a PC running Media Centre. Whether that means it has to connect to a Mac or do it stand alone doesn't matter, but it needs to compete with the Microsoft solution.
If you've got an old PC (or you buy a cheap 2nd hand PC) you can run Media Centre on then it only costs £80 for Media Centre, £200 for an Xbox and £50 for a TV card.
I'd of already gone with Microsoft but I want to be able to download video on to my iPod - the different video formats make that a pain in the arse at the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment