whateverandever
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
People who speed and drive under the influence make me sick. Pull the apps. And when you catch the scum, throw them in jail and take away their licence. The don't deserve to walk among us.
So... you're calling everyone who's ever gone over the speed limit scum that is worth of jail? Chances are good you'd fall into that category as well, even if you only accidentally went 1mph over the speed limit -- breaking the law is breaking the law.
So... you're calling everyone who's ever gone over the speed limit scum that is worth of jail? Chances are good you'd fall into that category as well, even if you only accidentally went 1mph over the speed limit -- breaking the law is breaking the law.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 12:01 PM
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
BTW, some months ago, Research in Motion coughed up $450 million to settle a patent dispute with NTP over the popular Blackberry devices. RIM made a total of $2 billion in fiscal 2006. NTP basically had RIM by the throat with its patents and extracted a heavy licensing fee as a result.
You're telling me Creative supposedly had Apple by the throat, and extracted 1/4 the licensing for a product that generates 4X the revenue of Blackberry? Riiiiiight....
To put it another way, $450 million was about 25% of RIM's entire annual revenue. $100 million is less than 1% of Apple's, and in fact, is less money than Apple makes on interest each year on its cash horde.
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.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:10 PM
Its important to always note context.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS....
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is incorrect. "Windows" the trademarked term did not come up yesterday like "appstore". It was first used for a new version of DOSshell, all it could claim was a gui interface on MS-DOS, aka "windows". MS-DOS was an OS, Windows through at least Win98 was not.
But that fight was resolved (poorly) years ago, people should stop using it as a reference.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS....
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is incorrect. "Windows" the trademarked term did not come up yesterday like "appstore". It was first used for a new version of DOSshell, all it could claim was a gui interface on MS-DOS, aka "windows". MS-DOS was an OS, Windows through at least Win98 was not.
But that fight was resolved (poorly) years ago, people should stop using it as a reference.
LarryC
Apr 22, 06:29 PM
I wish they would use AMD processors as a way to get around this problem with intel and ati. We would benefit from AMD's gpu's and a better price for the end user. Flame away.
jellomizer
Sep 14, 05:48 AM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
bedifferent
May 3, 11:33 AM
Great update� waiting for the usual suspects to come around to list any [unreasonable] cons :p�
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
gloss
Sep 26, 08:59 AM
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah, the termination fee is harsh, but I'm honestly not sure I could last another year and a half without throwing my Razr into a trash compactor. I like the phone, but the god-awful interface that Verizon loads onto it is another story.
A cell phone should NOT require hard reboots.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah, the termination fee is harsh, but I'm honestly not sure I could last another year and a half without throwing my Razr into a trash compactor. I like the phone, but the god-awful interface that Verizon loads onto it is another story.
A cell phone should NOT require hard reboots.
cwsm
Apr 11, 07:40 AM
You can use Airfoil and Airfoil Speakers to stream music from a PC/Mac to a PC/Mac/iOS/Airport Express device
Harthansen
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
This is suppose to be a "Media Event"?
They need to get rid of that little useless iPod 4:3 screen. Put in at least an anamorphic 720x480 widescreen model. That little iPod screen will keep me without any interest in any ipod above the Nano. Speaking of the nano... Is the new nano suppose to be cutting edge? It has the same look as the iPod mini. So 3 years ago! Where did the cutting edge go?
Itunes 7 Woo Hoo!
Expensive low quality movies. Double Woo Hoo! Amazon has actual DVD quality movies, for the same price range, and a much better selection. iTunes is only ahead now with the cool interface, but still the technology is not improving as fast as the competition.
Apple is in a slow fall...
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
$4.99 Atari quality Games??
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't waste my time downloading them for free! Never mind 5 bucks for Tetris!! Boo. I say Boo, Mr Jobs. It's like Apple isn't trying anymore. Steve wake T.F. up! What are you doing? You're getting lazy in your old age!
-Hart Hansen
http://www.myspace.com/harthansen
... generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
They need to get rid of that little useless iPod 4:3 screen. Put in at least an anamorphic 720x480 widescreen model. That little iPod screen will keep me without any interest in any ipod above the Nano. Speaking of the nano... Is the new nano suppose to be cutting edge? It has the same look as the iPod mini. So 3 years ago! Where did the cutting edge go?
Itunes 7 Woo Hoo!
Expensive low quality movies. Double Woo Hoo! Amazon has actual DVD quality movies, for the same price range, and a much better selection. iTunes is only ahead now with the cool interface, but still the technology is not improving as fast as the competition.
Apple is in a slow fall...
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
$4.99 Atari quality Games??
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't waste my time downloading them for free! Never mind 5 bucks for Tetris!! Boo. I say Boo, Mr Jobs. It's like Apple isn't trying anymore. Steve wake T.F. up! What are you doing? You're getting lazy in your old age!
-Hart Hansen
http://www.myspace.com/harthansen
... generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
mterlouw
Sep 4, 03:25 PM
I think it is the highly anticipated iToilet with universal iPod dock and count 'em four AppleTalk ports.
Gasu E.
Apr 22, 08:27 AM
I hate this cloud crap. All just an excuse to take away the consumers control of what they buy or use.
We need a boycott.
I believe any new innovation is designed specifically to be a personal imposition on me, regardless of how fanciful my assumptions.
We need a boycott.
I believe any new innovation is designed specifically to be a personal imposition on me, regardless of how fanciful my assumptions.
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 05:45 PM
I don't see the big deal
Don't see the big deal about what? That a ton of new apple products, like Core 2 Due MBP's and MB's, Conroe iMacs, new iPod videos and Nano's for example could be announced on the 12?
Or that the Pope is German?:)
Don't see the big deal about what? That a ton of new apple products, like Core 2 Due MBP's and MB's, Conroe iMacs, new iPod videos and Nano's for example could be announced on the 12?
Or that the Pope is German?:)
DavidLeblond
Apr 20, 11:34 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
mrsir2009
Apr 28, 06:00 PM
Yahoo!
thejadedmonkey
Sep 13, 11:40 PM
I hope the image isn't the iPhone. I didn't like the nano, and the 2nd gen ones aren't any better. They're all flat.. I don't like that. They need the bulge of the middle button that the mini and 1-4th gen iPods had. Yeah, there've been better renderings of "iPhones".
The other thing I'm worried about is that everyone is saying it's an iPod with phone functionality. That's not Apple at all. Apple focuses on one thing only, and then adds the rest. For an iPhone to happen, Apple would make a phone first, and then add music playback 2nd. not the other way around. That leaves me to believe that a screen with a wheel below it wouldn't be the best design.
Having said all this, I am in need of a new iPod, and a new phone.
The other thing I'm worried about is that everyone is saying it's an iPod with phone functionality. That's not Apple at all. Apple focuses on one thing only, and then adds the rest. For an iPhone to happen, Apple would make a phone first, and then add music playback 2nd. not the other way around. That leaves me to believe that a screen with a wheel below it wouldn't be the best design.
Having said all this, I am in need of a new iPod, and a new phone.
Al Coholic
Mar 23, 05:42 PM
Censorship! Don't do it, Apple!
All Senators are Democrats. Go figure.
LOL.
All Senators are Democrats. Go figure.
LOL.
AppleScruff1
Apr 4, 11:41 AM
I've never seen a mall security guard carrying a gun.
BobbyDigital
Sep 13, 11:20 PM
Hello everyone! I've been a daily MacRumors.com nerd for about 2 years now, but I never took the time to register until today...
I am definitely going to buy an Apple phone when and if it becomes available. I'm sure they'll get the design and interface right, as they always do. I saw someone post something on here (or maybe it was another recent thread) claiming their friend saw the Apple phone branded as a Samsung at a mobile phone convention just recently (which I totally doubt, they would never bring it out in public before release)... I think they're talking about this phone:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2006/08/sgh-z610.jpg
Samsung SGH-Z610 (http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/08/29/samsungs-touchscreen-sgh-z610-sees-fcc-approval/)
I love the design of it, but I'm really not sure if Apple would abondon the click wheel on their first step into the cell phone market. One part of me wishes they would go with a full touch screen, but I think the click wheel will make it easier to market to the masses of iPod lovers.
I am definitely going to buy an Apple phone when and if it becomes available. I'm sure they'll get the design and interface right, as they always do. I saw someone post something on here (or maybe it was another recent thread) claiming their friend saw the Apple phone branded as a Samsung at a mobile phone convention just recently (which I totally doubt, they would never bring it out in public before release)... I think they're talking about this phone:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2006/08/sgh-z610.jpg
Samsung SGH-Z610 (http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/08/29/samsungs-touchscreen-sgh-z610-sees-fcc-approval/)
I love the design of it, but I'm really not sure if Apple would abondon the click wheel on their first step into the cell phone market. One part of me wishes they would go with a full touch screen, but I think the click wheel will make it easier to market to the masses of iPod lovers.
dejo
Nov 13, 03:54 PM
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).
balamw
Sep 19, 02:02 PM
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow". This was over a decent but not great motel WiFi setup, and I was downloading some other stuff for about half the time.
You were downloading Deuce Bigelow in 1080p, or in 640x480 from iTMS?
Sounds more like 640x480. So by extrapolation 1080p which has 6.75 as many pixels would be somewhere like 2.5-6 times as long to download. i.e. it could take up to 7 hours to download.
B
You were downloading Deuce Bigelow in 1080p, or in 640x480 from iTMS?
Sounds more like 640x480. So by extrapolation 1080p which has 6.75 as many pixels would be somewhere like 2.5-6 times as long to download. i.e. it could take up to 7 hours to download.
B
Skika
Apr 25, 03:54 PM
The "step forward" of which you speak, of which is the basis of this article, is only in regards to the exterior design, nothing else. Sure if they improve upon the durability and the ease of servicing, that'll be a decent step forward, otherwise, we're talking about cosmetics, and again while most of the people who lurk these forums care about form over function, function is all that matters and it won't be that different next rev, redesign or not.
Herp derp. Im pretty sure there will be a minor spec bump as well, and exterior design in a laptop is a pretty important feature or a "function and should be taken in consideration just as well (or not even more) than a new "ixy procesor" and a "8650 gt mx" graphics card, which in most cases just serve as a hard on for spec geeks.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
Herp derp. Im pretty sure there will be a minor spec bump as well, and exterior design in a laptop is a pretty important feature or a "function and should be taken in consideration just as well (or not even more) than a new "ixy procesor" and a "8650 gt mx" graphics card, which in most cases just serve as a hard on for spec geeks.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 10:03 AM
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment