Chundles
Oct 12, 01:20 PM
It's certainly better than an red, glossy 1G nano - hopefully it would have the proper matte, anodised finish of the current nanos rather than the glossy coating ColorWarePC use to do their custom iPods.
Not too bad though...
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
Not too bad though...
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
KnightWRX
Apr 19, 06:55 AM
The phone's look is indeed very similar.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
But that's the thing, this simply can't be about "look and feel" since the precedents on that are firmly established by Apple vs Microsoft where Apple lost the whole "look and feel" part of the suit.
Like you asked in the other thread, someone with access to PACER could list the infringing patents Apple is claiming so we can get some insight into what exactly Samsung is infringing upon ?
The screenshot showing the App Drawer on the Samsung phone is quite disingenuous, and makes it look like TouchWiz is a rip off of the iOS Home screen, but the home screen isn't anything like that. That's a pull up menu of apps you have installed, how else would they represent it seeing how the icon grid has been standard for years before the iPhone came along and is standard also in other Android based devices ?
Also, I doubt Apple has a patent on icon grids.
Until we have more details on this lawsuit and until Samsung responds with something more than veiled threats in the media from "unidentified officials", I don't think this is quite worth making a temptest and throwing hate around, to either player (calling Samsung's Galaxy phone, the best selling Android device, KIRF and calling Apple sue-happy and scared).
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
But that's the thing, this simply can't be about "look and feel" since the precedents on that are firmly established by Apple vs Microsoft where Apple lost the whole "look and feel" part of the suit.
Like you asked in the other thread, someone with access to PACER could list the infringing patents Apple is claiming so we can get some insight into what exactly Samsung is infringing upon ?
The screenshot showing the App Drawer on the Samsung phone is quite disingenuous, and makes it look like TouchWiz is a rip off of the iOS Home screen, but the home screen isn't anything like that. That's a pull up menu of apps you have installed, how else would they represent it seeing how the icon grid has been standard for years before the iPhone came along and is standard also in other Android based devices ?
Also, I doubt Apple has a patent on icon grids.
Until we have more details on this lawsuit and until Samsung responds with something more than veiled threats in the media from "unidentified officials", I don't think this is quite worth making a temptest and throwing hate around, to either player (calling Samsung's Galaxy phone, the best selling Android device, KIRF and calling Apple sue-happy and scared).
KnightWRX
Apr 30, 05:00 PM
I agree 100% with the sentiment of what you're saying -- I think the matte vs. gloss thing is WAAAAY overblown, but just for argument's sake, remember that CRT have a curved front screen, not a flat sheet of glass. That's going to diffuse a lot of external light just by the nature of the design.
Sure, maybe, but I remember not being able to even see what was on glass tube CRT monitor when the shades were open. Heck, TVs in summer ? :eek: While there may be virtues to the matte screens, I doubt it's as big an issue as some people make it out to be.
Sure, maybe, but I remember not being able to even see what was on glass tube CRT monitor when the shades were open. Heck, TVs in summer ? :eek: While there may be virtues to the matte screens, I doubt it's as big an issue as some people make it out to be.
mobilehavoc
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
Microsoft overtaking Apple for marketshare. Hmm...sounds familiar.
prady16
Sep 14, 08:59 AM
Any news if Steve will give a keynote in the special event preceeding photokina?
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 22, 03:25 PM
As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
Auax
Apr 20, 01:28 AM
Sumsang claimed that they created this phone. Actually i see no significant difference between Galaxy and iPhone.
scrapple
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
yawn..
they both made billions... who cares.
they both made billions... who cares.
iMeowbot
Aug 29, 01:05 AM
if apple wants to stay competivie, they need to release updates tomorrow.. not wait for paris but tomorrow. Plus i can order a new iMac this week and still get my free ipod nano :D
I'll note that the Dell notebook isn't shipping until 14 September (6th for the low end), and the desktop version shows a ship date in November. Apple have plenty of time.
i don't know, but i am not sure about this Intel thing yet!:mad:
If you really had your heart set on the PowerBook G5 form factor, the Tadpole Bullfrogs (http://www.tadpole.com/products/notebooks.asp) come pretty close. SPARC is fairly unusual, the other kids on the street probably won't have them.
I'll note that the Dell notebook isn't shipping until 14 September (6th for the low end), and the desktop version shows a ship date in November. Apple have plenty of time.
i don't know, but i am not sure about this Intel thing yet!:mad:
If you really had your heart set on the PowerBook G5 form factor, the Tadpole Bullfrogs (http://www.tadpole.com/products/notebooks.asp) come pretty close. SPARC is fairly unusual, the other kids on the street probably won't have them.
scottgroovez
Apr 25, 02:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Evangelion
Sep 5, 09:03 AM
If we see new macs when the store is up. then it will be clear that the upcoming event will be only iPod related. here's to mac updates this morning!:D
If there are Mac updates coming, why is only US store down?
If there are Mac updates coming, why is only US store down?
MacBoobsPro
Sep 19, 03:13 PM
Didn't Steve say in his keynote how long it would be until Europe got movies? I could have sworn it was October.
I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007. :rolleyes:
I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007. :rolleyes:
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.
cube
Mar 30, 12:52 PM
Isn't "Hoover" the reason why the word "Hoover" became a generic term for a vacuum cleaner? The power of the brand name itself. Much like its common in the states to hear "Xerox" to describe a photo copier? Or to "Google" to search on the internet..
Or, Sallatape ( spelling ) for "sticky tape"...
Scotch tape.
You don't google using Bing. You google using Google.
Or, Sallatape ( spelling ) for "sticky tape"...
Scotch tape.
You don't google using Bing. You google using Google.
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:35 PM
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop. :)
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
munkery
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
A few examples: Look up Leap-A and Inqtana-A on OSX (very real OSX worms), MusMinim-A (recent trojan).
Leap-a required authentication to infect and spread via iChat given that iChat is owned by System but is only run with user privileges. It did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
Inqtana-a was a proof of concept that could only modify the user level of the system because didn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Malware can NOT install rootkits or keyloggers that can hook into apps owned by System (such as Safari, Mail, & etc) with only user level access.
MusMinim-a is also a beta proof of concept based of a legitimate piece of software ported from Windows (http://www.darkcomet-rat.com/). It requires authentication to install given that it does NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats (List of Malware threats on Linux; why not pretend they don't even exist?)
You do realize most of those are proof-of-concepts generated through research. Most were never present in the wild and did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Two that were in the wild are Bliss (1997 - ineffective as did not include privilege escalation) and Stoag (1996). https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus
It sounds good at first except for one giant pothole of a flaw. I mean why do things that are difficult to trace when you can just set up a sign on a server somewhere that says "Here's my bank account! Come and arrest me!" (i.e. the money is being redirected...follow the money trail!) :rolleyes:
You do realize that the redirection of ad revenue is one of the primary means of profit generation of what has been referred to as the most advanced Windows rootkit. BTW, some variants achieve privilege escalation via exploitation (see the second link).
http://www.brighthub.com/internet/google/articles/66090.aspx
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software).
Untrue. Mac apps rarely ask for authentication to install if you install the app in the appropriate folder for the user account type.
Leap-a required authentication to infect and spread via iChat given that iChat is owned by System but is only run with user privileges. It did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
Inqtana-a was a proof of concept that could only modify the user level of the system because didn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Malware can NOT install rootkits or keyloggers that can hook into apps owned by System (such as Safari, Mail, & etc) with only user level access.
MusMinim-a is also a beta proof of concept based of a legitimate piece of software ported from Windows (http://www.darkcomet-rat.com/). It requires authentication to install given that it does NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats (List of Malware threats on Linux; why not pretend they don't even exist?)
You do realize most of those are proof-of-concepts generated through research. Most were never present in the wild and did NOT achieve privilege escalation via exploitation. Two that were in the wild are Bliss (1997 - ineffective as did not include privilege escalation) and Stoag (1996). https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus
It sounds good at first except for one giant pothole of a flaw. I mean why do things that are difficult to trace when you can just set up a sign on a server somewhere that says "Here's my bank account! Come and arrest me!" (i.e. the money is being redirected...follow the money trail!) :rolleyes:
You do realize that the redirection of ad revenue is one of the primary means of profit generation of what has been referred to as the most advanced Windows rootkit. BTW, some variants achieve privilege escalation via exploitation (see the second link).
http://www.brighthub.com/internet/google/articles/66090.aspx
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software).
Untrue. Mac apps rarely ask for authentication to install if you install the app in the appropriate folder for the user account type.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
Educated guess would be "big" iPod sales will slump whilst the Nanos & Shuffles will skyrocket.At these new lower price points that reads pretty UN-educated to me. On secopnd thought though since many of US - not the general public - are waiting for the 640x360 widescreen video iPod, this would be a miss.
I htink it's pretty lousy of Apple not to provide the firmware update to allow original 5G Video iPods to load and play Baseline H.264 640x480 self-encoded video. I'm mad about it.
I htink it's pretty lousy of Apple not to provide the firmware update to allow original 5G Video iPods to load and play Baseline H.264 640x480 self-encoded video. I'm mad about it.
Piggie
Apr 15, 02:40 PM
You have to admit this thread is really funny.
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 05:15 PM
I see Apple stock going up on this news. $100 Million is getting off easy. Could have been a LOT worse.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
UmaThurman
Sep 3, 06:48 PM
This may be a really dumb question, but when the new MBP comes out, do y'all think it'll stay aroudn the same price range or increase?:confused:
maccompaq
Feb 9, 02:38 PM
it's a nice gesture, but anti-virus software on osx is about as useful as tits on a boar.
You are far too generous.
You are far too generous.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 19, 03:38 PM
I hope you're getting paid well to post this crap.
Is there some reason you feel the need lash out at people?
Still, don't you feel dirty having to post references to obsolete "malware" like Leap-A and Inqtana-A that were never successful even before the OS was patched years ago??
You seem to be utterly oblivious to the whole point of the message which is that OSX is not invulnerable by any means, which seems to be the fanboy mantra of the week.
As for USB3 vs Lightpeak, your pitiful response makes me think you were one of the pinheads criticizing Apple for dropping floppy drives at the turn of the century.
Again, the childish lashing out of insults.... :rolleyes: You do realize they don't make your opinions look any better don't you?
The idea of dropping a drive that takes up space is one thing, but to include USB2 ports while purposely leaving out USB3 ports (which take up the same amount of space and are 100% backwards compatible) is asinine. The fact you would feel the need to call people "pinheads" who think in a logical manner rather than blindly worship Steve and everything Apple does tells me all I need to know about you, really.
Is there some reason you feel the need lash out at people?
Still, don't you feel dirty having to post references to obsolete "malware" like Leap-A and Inqtana-A that were never successful even before the OS was patched years ago??
You seem to be utterly oblivious to the whole point of the message which is that OSX is not invulnerable by any means, which seems to be the fanboy mantra of the week.
As for USB3 vs Lightpeak, your pitiful response makes me think you were one of the pinheads criticizing Apple for dropping floppy drives at the turn of the century.
Again, the childish lashing out of insults.... :rolleyes: You do realize they don't make your opinions look any better don't you?
The idea of dropping a drive that takes up space is one thing, but to include USB2 ports while purposely leaving out USB3 ports (which take up the same amount of space and are 100% backwards compatible) is asinine. The fact you would feel the need to call people "pinheads" who think in a logical manner rather than blindly worship Steve and everything Apple does tells me all I need to know about you, really.
greg6028
Sep 14, 08:50 AM
It's coming soon!
Thinking of the event last Tuesday, it was interesting that Steve finished the Keynote with,
On your desktop, in your car, in your pocket in your home theater....
He was pointing out where Apple products are - so why not your phone.
Jobs had a lot of events last year in the final quarter. I can see him doing another one soon.
(I know there is one coming up next week, but my bet on one in Oct. for the iPhone!)
Thinking of the event last Tuesday, it was interesting that Steve finished the Keynote with,
On your desktop, in your car, in your pocket in your home theater....
He was pointing out where Apple products are - so why not your phone.
Jobs had a lot of events last year in the final quarter. I can see him doing another one soon.
(I know there is one coming up next week, but my bet on one in Oct. for the iPhone!)
EricNau
Apr 25, 01:06 AM
It's interesting. Every single poster here clearly disagrees with your actions (which are undeniably illegal) and your justification (including your improper blame on the woman driving in front of you). And yet, it's everyone else that must be wrong, not you.
Like I said, it's interesting.
Like I said, it's interesting.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий