LagunaSol
Apr 18, 04:05 PM
[B]But I don't think companies should be able to copyright overall aesthetic choices unless the two products are basically identical looking and intended to be sold as cheap knockoffs.
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
RebootD
Mar 30, 09:12 PM
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
Sodner
Apr 7, 09:30 AM
Ha ha! Way to go Apple!!!! Kill the competition any way you can!!
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
puckhead193
Apr 20, 10:47 AM
I thought that would be the upgrade this year... nothing special like the 3gs update.
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
If I can't run iOS 5 then maybe but i'm sure I could run it on my iphone 4
lilo777
Apr 18, 04:19 PM
Call me crazy, but I think this might lend creedence to the thought that iPhone 5 will come out this summer...
How are these connected?
Well I've been thinking that Apple really wants to show the world, investors, etc, that it can still keep secrets after the i4 debacle last year. I think its possible they have changed suppliers in an atempt to stop the leaks. They might also be fueling the disinformation campaign that puts the 5 in October.
The fact that they are now suing Samsung, and waited this long, might give validity to this theory, as they did not want to sue them while Sammy was still a key supplier for them.
Something to think about.
You are crazy. If anything, this might indicate that iPhone 5 will be delayed for a year or two. Apple will have to build it's own factories for LCD panels, RAM and flash memory chips.
How are these connected?
Well I've been thinking that Apple really wants to show the world, investors, etc, that it can still keep secrets after the i4 debacle last year. I think its possible they have changed suppliers in an atempt to stop the leaks. They might also be fueling the disinformation campaign that puts the 5 in October.
The fact that they are now suing Samsung, and waited this long, might give validity to this theory, as they did not want to sue them while Sammy was still a key supplier for them.
Something to think about.
You are crazy. If anything, this might indicate that iPhone 5 will be delayed for a year or two. Apple will have to build it's own factories for LCD panels, RAM and flash memory chips.
kingtj
Mar 30, 10:30 AM
I have to admit, it was an odd stance for me to take, too. (I'm pretty much a libertarian, yet I found myself arguing with a conservative Republican who was completely against the idea of tariffs ever being of any value.)
My point to him was, although I find tariffs to be evil, *sometimes*, I think they're a necessary evil, because we don't really have any other effective tools to use to prevent another nation from dumping products on us at below cost, in an effort to put one of our own industries under. IMO, China is essentially doing this with things like computers and electronics because they're selling the products to us without incorporating all of the *true* costs of their manufacture. (EG. They're destroying complete cities and rivers over there with pollution, rather than incurring the cost to properly dispose of/handle the byproducts of the production.)
I'm all for a free market, but I think the playing field has to be somewhat level too, for it to function properly. We've reached a point now where the United States says it respects certain basic human rights and freedoms, (including providing workers with a safe working environment) - yet we want our companies to compete directly with goods we're bringing in from other countries who don't share any of those values. At some point, that becomes impossible.
Historically, we used to pay FAR more for a computer in the 80's than we do today, *even* if inflation isn't even factored in! For example, the very popular Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III computer? They wanted $2,495 for it with 32K of RAM and dual floppy drives, back in 1980!
I like to get a good value as much as the next guy, but honestly - we've collectively been paying too low a price for our computer gear in recent years. It's reached a point where it's causing a lot of long-term damage at the expense of the initial good of getting a great price. (Have you seen all the consolidation happening with hard drive manufacturers, recently? Great companies have died off and had to merge with other ones because the margins have gotten so low. Remember Maxtor, or Micropolis before them, anyone?)
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
My point to him was, although I find tariffs to be evil, *sometimes*, I think they're a necessary evil, because we don't really have any other effective tools to use to prevent another nation from dumping products on us at below cost, in an effort to put one of our own industries under. IMO, China is essentially doing this with things like computers and electronics because they're selling the products to us without incorporating all of the *true* costs of their manufacture. (EG. They're destroying complete cities and rivers over there with pollution, rather than incurring the cost to properly dispose of/handle the byproducts of the production.)
I'm all for a free market, but I think the playing field has to be somewhat level too, for it to function properly. We've reached a point now where the United States says it respects certain basic human rights and freedoms, (including providing workers with a safe working environment) - yet we want our companies to compete directly with goods we're bringing in from other countries who don't share any of those values. At some point, that becomes impossible.
Historically, we used to pay FAR more for a computer in the 80's than we do today, *even* if inflation isn't even factored in! For example, the very popular Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III computer? They wanted $2,495 for it with 32K of RAM and dual floppy drives, back in 1980!
I like to get a good value as much as the next guy, but honestly - we've collectively been paying too low a price for our computer gear in recent years. It's reached a point where it's causing a lot of long-term damage at the expense of the initial good of getting a great price. (Have you seen all the consolidation happening with hard drive manufacturers, recently? Great companies have died off and had to merge with other ones because the margins have gotten so low. Remember Maxtor, or Micropolis before them, anyone?)
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
KnightWRX
May 6, 07:10 AM
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/21/google-buys-agnilux-eyeing-processors/
The article doesn't mention the processor architecture, but it is really supposed to be ARM.
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
The article doesn't mention the processor architecture, but it is really supposed to be ARM.
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
wrldwzrd89
May 7, 10:08 AM
I doubt the truth of this rumor, but it is still interesting nonetheless. One question it raises: How will Apple handle paying customers' subscriptions that expire after the point this takes effect?
axonic labs
May 6, 01:11 AM
Oh Charlie, you so silly.
Charlie is still trying to bring nVidia down. Apple won't switch to a slower CPU.
Charlie is still trying to bring nVidia down. Apple won't switch to a slower CPU.
Rafterman
Mar 27, 09:56 AM
Yeah, cloud based video is going to work really well with those 2GB and 4GB data caps by the cell companies :rolleyes:
sommer182
Mar 28, 10:39 AM
I could see this happening. It would make sense to me to try and consolidate their iOS devices to one release cycle. iPod and iPhones are fairly close as it is, mid-summer and early fall. Would it be a big shock to move the new kid iPad and it's older siblings into one release? No.
seek3r
Apr 22, 12:40 AM
You are right, I fold. I know nothing about 19" racks (1.80 meters tall and 150 kg. in weight), and nothing about conditioned server rooms with dual power feeds at all. Flight cases with equipment I also know nothing about. I'm sorry I'm doubting your knowledge and insight.
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
scibry
Jul 30, 05:57 PM
I stated this exactly in a previous thread but I could change my stance if I could be convinced of one or more of the following were possible.
1. Could Apple improve their iChat to compete with the likes of skype, etc?
2. Could Apple provide such a service?
3. Could Apple create an iPod tele without removing what is already available in an iPod?
4. Could there be a iTel AV to connect to iChat AV.
Even if the photographer's visit was legit from the sound of it, it is an entirely new product so I'd have to assume that it was just another phone. Whomever they jump into bed with (service provider) would have to be big, really big. Another thing detracting from the story is that the telephone companies are notoriously slow getting product into their stores whereas when Apple releases something it is in store (Apple store that is) rather quickly. AND I don't see Apple selling another company's cell phone service in-store.
All I have to say is that Apple will ideally solve the voice chat market's needs, connecting us to any person with a phone or computer cheaply or for free and offering a beginner wireless to wireless service perhaps through an iPod accessory. I use Skype from my Mac to talk unlimited and free to a friend in Nederlands (also on Skype) unlimited and free because not everyone uses AIM (or has a Mac with iChat). He for example uses MSN. Adium is an example of software that unifies the IM experience and iChat is not. iChat's best features are not usable by my foreign PC using friends with other IM services like Yahoo! and MSN (which are now apparently merging). If Apple can support Microsoft Office they can surely support MSN and they already do in Address Book. So not only do they need to offer voice chat to homes but they also need to offer voice chat to EVERY modern computer/PC.
Will there be a cell phone? I was thinking maybe a walkie talkie built into an iPod.
1. Could Apple improve their iChat to compete with the likes of skype, etc?
2. Could Apple provide such a service?
3. Could Apple create an iPod tele without removing what is already available in an iPod?
4. Could there be a iTel AV to connect to iChat AV.
Even if the photographer's visit was legit from the sound of it, it is an entirely new product so I'd have to assume that it was just another phone. Whomever they jump into bed with (service provider) would have to be big, really big. Another thing detracting from the story is that the telephone companies are notoriously slow getting product into their stores whereas when Apple releases something it is in store (Apple store that is) rather quickly. AND I don't see Apple selling another company's cell phone service in-store.
All I have to say is that Apple will ideally solve the voice chat market's needs, connecting us to any person with a phone or computer cheaply or for free and offering a beginner wireless to wireless service perhaps through an iPod accessory. I use Skype from my Mac to talk unlimited and free to a friend in Nederlands (also on Skype) unlimited and free because not everyone uses AIM (or has a Mac with iChat). He for example uses MSN. Adium is an example of software that unifies the IM experience and iChat is not. iChat's best features are not usable by my foreign PC using friends with other IM services like Yahoo! and MSN (which are now apparently merging). If Apple can support Microsoft Office they can surely support MSN and they already do in Address Book. So not only do they need to offer voice chat to homes but they also need to offer voice chat to EVERY modern computer/PC.
Will there be a cell phone? I was thinking maybe a walkie talkie built into an iPod.
samh004
May 7, 11:08 AM
I get the feeling they are not really making any money on it, so it would make sense to give it away as a benefit of "using a mac."
I can�t remember where it was mentioned, but I recall (dreamed?) that Apple had 1 million paid-up MobileMe members at one stage. If you even multiply that by the lowest amount you can purchase it for, that�s what, $69 million a year. Can�t be losing that much money.
Maybe an apple giftcard for the difference? Like apple did for the early adopters of iPhone 2G when there was a price drop :cool:
At least that�d make me buy a product I�ve had my eye on but haven�t had incentive to take the plunge ;)
The best option is to cover both ends.
I like this idea� but not the following one�
Free MobileMe as an iAd platform? That sounds about right. Paid MobileMe without the iAds? I think we're getting somewhere now...
I�d still pay in this case, but the price better not increase :(
I can�t remember where it was mentioned, but I recall (dreamed?) that Apple had 1 million paid-up MobileMe members at one stage. If you even multiply that by the lowest amount you can purchase it for, that�s what, $69 million a year. Can�t be losing that much money.
Maybe an apple giftcard for the difference? Like apple did for the early adopters of iPhone 2G when there was a price drop :cool:
At least that�d make me buy a product I�ve had my eye on but haven�t had incentive to take the plunge ;)
The best option is to cover both ends.
I like this idea� but not the following one�
Free MobileMe as an iAd platform? That sounds about right. Paid MobileMe without the iAds? I think we're getting somewhere now...
I�d still pay in this case, but the price better not increase :(
0815
Apr 5, 02:51 PM
You seriously see this as a feature? Apple only is able to do this by signing agreements with a carrier, and being on a 1-product line. Why do you think you get that release so quickly on your AT&T iPhone? Because they don't offer a T-Mobile iPhone, nor does T-Mobile or anyone else support it (until Verizon agreed to Apple's terms)... An android device is available on any carrier, and in this country we have multiple technologies (CDMA, IDEN, GSM 1700, GSM 2100, LTE, WiMax, etc etc)... if you're comparing the iPhone which has been offered on ONE network with ONE technology (which isn't even the latest as of 2010), that's a bad comparison. Furthermore, it's not difficult to release an all-device software update when "all devices" consist of ONE device.
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
wheezy
Mar 29, 08:52 AM
It's yet another Dropbox offering that's a long ways behind awesome-integration with other products (Lots of apps sync data between devices via Dropbox). And, if I put a music file into dropbox I can play it, mobile device independent.
Also, why would I only want my music accessible when I have internet? Any road trips from where I live (Utah) generally put me in EDGE territory which won't be consistently fast enough to stream the audio at enough quality, let alone the fact that there are several dead spots along the way. I'll stick to having my music on my iPhone. No buffer, no stutter, no data usage. Oh, yeah. That. Data usage. With carriers bottlenecking you now, you think they'll favor Amazon cloud delivery for people who want to stream their music all day long? They (Amazon) will probably also do some more compression on the files so it'll sound like listening to your music in a tin can.
At first glance, being very pessimistic, I'm not really interested in this product.
Also, why would I only want my music accessible when I have internet? Any road trips from where I live (Utah) generally put me in EDGE territory which won't be consistently fast enough to stream the audio at enough quality, let alone the fact that there are several dead spots along the way. I'll stick to having my music on my iPhone. No buffer, no stutter, no data usage. Oh, yeah. That. Data usage. With carriers bottlenecking you now, you think they'll favor Amazon cloud delivery for people who want to stream their music all day long? They (Amazon) will probably also do some more compression on the files so it'll sound like listening to your music in a tin can.
At first glance, being very pessimistic, I'm not really interested in this product.
iRobby
Mar 27, 03:52 AM
I believe the iPad 3 out in thee. Fall to be BS.
I believe iPhone 5 and IOS 5 to be released TOGETHER whether in June or the Fall.
My #1 request for iPhone 5?is 64GB. My 32GB 3GS only has 0.68GB available.
I believe iPhone 5 and IOS 5 to be released TOGETHER whether in June or the Fall.
My #1 request for iPhone 5?is 64GB. My 32GB 3GS only has 0.68GB available.
D A
May 6, 01:53 AM
I was a little worried until I saw who wrote the article. It's Charlie Demerjian and I've never seen a tech journalist as full of **** as he is. No need to worry, Apple ain't switching to ARM chips in their Macs.
marksman
Mar 29, 05:43 PM
God hates us listening to music.
chabig
Aug 4, 12:05 AM
Merom in the MBP for sure. Now.
Apple is showing "64-bit" in the one banner.
That banner is showing Apple's existing products, not future products. The 64 bit logo is no doubt referring to the current line of G5 machines.
Chris
Apple is showing "64-bit" in the one banner.
That banner is showing Apple's existing products, not future products. The 64 bit logo is no doubt referring to the current line of G5 machines.
Chris
beatybeaty
Apr 26, 03:52 PM
Why do these numbers never make sense to me? Massive iOS device sales, no reports of Android sales, yet -bam - Android takes over the world? I just don't get it...
There are reports like this, then debunked, then a new one, then debunked. What is really going on?
There are reports like this, then debunked, then a new one, then debunked. What is really going on?
-aggie-
May 3, 01:41 PM
Uh, a hero dies once all of his HP is gone.
That should've be more clear. Basically I'm just stating *why* the villain is at level 16. It's not an arbitrary number - it's the number of players multiplied by two. # of players (8) multiplied by 2 = villain's level (16). That's all.
Okay, but we start with only 1 HP. So, a number of us could die in the first round?
The villain's level doesn't matter, right? He either kills all or he loses.
That should've be more clear. Basically I'm just stating *why* the villain is at level 16. It's not an arbitrary number - it's the number of players multiplied by two. # of players (8) multiplied by 2 = villain's level (16). That's all.
Okay, but we start with only 1 HP. So, a number of us could die in the first round?
The villain's level doesn't matter, right? He either kills all or he loses.
Al Coholic
Apr 23, 05:31 PM
That volcano pic is very telling... considering all the heat issues with the new MBP's.
Coincidence? I think not! :eek:
Coincidence? I think not! :eek:
nmrrjw66
Apr 15, 07:17 PM
:mad::mad::mad: I am seriously starting to get pissed.
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?