WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:04 PM
If apple paid 100 million, they should then sue their lawyers for fraud. This suit would not even come close to 100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
MOFS
Mar 30, 11:35 AM
The thing to remember is that there are two words for "application". Apple use "application" (with the suffix .app) on OS X. Microsoft uses "Programs" (suffix .exe). Application is linked with Apple, so when they call it the "App Store" it is based on their previous use. "Prog Store" would also not be generic.
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 04:47 PM
1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
res1233
Apr 30, 01:56 PM
USB 3 is coming next year. The only reason Apple has yet to implement it is because Intel hasn't. But that will change in Ivy Bridge.
Yep. There is little reason for Apple to fear USB 3. It's slower in both theoretical maximum speed and FAR slower in real world maximum speed. The only advantage is... Uhm... TB supports USB so... I guess there isn't one. Yes, I think USB 3 is quite possibly going to be the last iteration of USB.
Yep. There is little reason for Apple to fear USB 3. It's slower in both theoretical maximum speed and FAR slower in real world maximum speed. The only advantage is... Uhm... TB supports USB so... I guess there isn't one. Yes, I think USB 3 is quite possibly going to be the last iteration of USB.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 04:05 PM
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
AidenShaw
Sep 5, 12:19 PM
The TV makes a terrible monitor for any other computer use, and I just don't want the computer in my TV room.
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
miketcool
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
Chrome-Molybdenum. Yup, blindingly brilliant in the sun and scratch resistant.
Seriously, magnesium is perfect. We can have it in black and then do a fire test on it to see how it compares....:D
Seriously, magnesium is perfect. We can have it in black and then do a fire test on it to see how it compares....:D
Rocketman
Sep 19, 03:28 PM
I'll post.
The primary objection of studios to iTS (iTunes Store) is not rental vs. ownership. It is pissing off its physical channel "partners".
Steve Jobs has a history of pissing off physical channel partners. When the online Apple Store was vastly enlarged and promoted, the value added dealers lost premium CPU and software sales to Apple itself, since they have a price fixing contract. Consumers were no worse off ordering direct with free shipping than going down to a dealer if they did not need advise for the product purchase. In addition many asked questions of local dealers then purchased online thereafter.
This was further an issue when Apple added their own dealer network (stores) which were to a large degree competing with the long-standing dedicated dealer network as well as the mass merchandising dealers, who have been really hit and miss over the years. That has resulted in low mindshare as compared to Apple and indy dealers who people at least KNOW have the stuff if they are inclined toward those channels.
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics. So much so, it is Wal-Mart who is pressuring studios to shun iTS, and to a large degree it is actually working.
Not for long.
Rocketman
The primary objection of studios to iTS (iTunes Store) is not rental vs. ownership. It is pissing off its physical channel "partners".
Steve Jobs has a history of pissing off physical channel partners. When the online Apple Store was vastly enlarged and promoted, the value added dealers lost premium CPU and software sales to Apple itself, since they have a price fixing contract. Consumers were no worse off ordering direct with free shipping than going down to a dealer if they did not need advise for the product purchase. In addition many asked questions of local dealers then purchased online thereafter.
This was further an issue when Apple added their own dealer network (stores) which were to a large degree competing with the long-standing dedicated dealer network as well as the mass merchandising dealers, who have been really hit and miss over the years. That has resulted in low mindshare as compared to Apple and indy dealers who people at least KNOW have the stuff if they are inclined toward those channels.
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics. So much so, it is Wal-Mart who is pressuring studios to shun iTS, and to a large degree it is actually working.
Not for long.
Rocketman
puckhead193
Sep 19, 01:34 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
Squonk
Sep 26, 08:52 AM
Include all the functionality of the Apple remote to allow the iPhone to drive your iTV and Front Row.
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
MattSepeta
Apr 18, 04:00 PM
The very fact that employers think that employees "should" work even one minute more than what they are paid to is mind-boggling. Why should they "expect" that the employee will give his time willingly for no extra?
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
gnasher729
Oct 28, 01:07 PM
This has NOTHING to do with environmentalism, president Bush, or freedom of speech. It has to do with a the organizers of a privately held event kicking out an attendee for violating the terms it had set.
Not quite. This is one attendee that proved to be troublemaker in the past, who made the mistake of not following the terms to the tiniest detail, thereby giving the organisers an excuse for kicking them out. If lets say NVidia or ATI were showing graphics cards that are of interest to Macintosh users, and they were violating the terms of the organizers in the same way, nothing would happen at all.
That said, I wouldn't have let them in in the first place. It seems that their attack against Apple was mostly caused by Apple not making any actual promises about environmental issues - Greenpeace measured companies mostly by the amount of promises they made, and Apple is more into action.
Not quite. This is one attendee that proved to be troublemaker in the past, who made the mistake of not following the terms to the tiniest detail, thereby giving the organisers an excuse for kicking them out. If lets say NVidia or ATI were showing graphics cards that are of interest to Macintosh users, and they were violating the terms of the organizers in the same way, nothing would happen at all.
That said, I wouldn't have let them in in the first place. It seems that their attack against Apple was mostly caused by Apple not making any actual promises about environmental issues - Greenpeace measured companies mostly by the amount of promises they made, and Apple is more into action.
Popeye206
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
Balmer is thinking early retirement I'm sure. :p
Who would have ever thunk that little old Apple would eventually pass MS?
Who would have ever thunk that little old Apple would eventually pass MS?
DeaconGraves
Mar 23, 04:55 PM
Seems like this would actually discourage drunk driving knowing you'll encounter a check point on your way home.
THIS Related to this, when I'm aware that the police in my area are operating under a "no-refusal" policy, I am much, much more careful and tend not to drive if I've had anything to drink, let alone close to the legal limit.
Drunk driving is awful ass-hattery, but to restrict public information ranks up there too.
THIS Related to this, when I'm aware that the police in my area are operating under a "no-refusal" policy, I am much, much more careful and tend not to drive if I've had anything to drink, let alone close to the legal limit.
Drunk driving is awful ass-hattery, but to restrict public information ranks up there too.
iMeowbot
Sep 16, 01:29 PM
But then why would he say "Some people might be coming up with that soon" ?
The BG quote was "I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)"
"Carrying music on my mobile" would be the "future" thing (never mind that there are already phones that do this, and even phones and PDAs running Windows Mobile that do this...)
The BG quote was "I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)"
"Carrying music on my mobile" would be the "future" thing (never mind that there are already phones that do this, and even phones and PDAs running Windows Mobile that do this...)
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 06:46 AM
Powerbook G5 tomorrow!!! LOL ok, ok.. before someone shoots me .....
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.
Ed A.
Apr 30, 05:01 PM
yes, new imac's will come, but sadly the will probably come without:
1- Matte screen option
2- USB 3
3- Blu-Ray
apple will just give consumers part of the options they want.
If they have a matte screen option for the new iMacs, I'll buy one. If not, then I'll hold out for some future update.
1- Matte screen option
2- USB 3
3- Blu-Ray
apple will just give consumers part of the options they want.
If they have a matte screen option for the new iMacs, I'll buy one. If not, then I'll hold out for some future update.
Analog Kid
Apr 14, 01:18 PM
Oh well, there goes all my enthusiasm... Thunderbolt is dead.
USB 3 is slower, uglier, more gummed up with kruft but the masses are comfortable with it so everything will use it. Thunderbolt will go the way of FireWire.
Ugh.
USB 3 is slower, uglier, more gummed up with kruft but the masses are comfortable with it so everything will use it. Thunderbolt will go the way of FireWire.
Ugh.
nagromme
Oct 12, 03:39 PM
I'm saying that Africa will sort out it's own problems in time, when those individuals who recognize the problem for themselves get a voice. We can help, and every little bit helps, but it's not ours to fix. This is FAR FAR more complex and rooted than a kid who hurts his knee on a skateboard.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
I don't think anyone, from Bono to me, thinks red iPods are a complete solution. Of course complex problems have complex solutions. And yet programs like the ones Red supports--which are not limited to education--help.
And speaking of cherrypicking, you left some things unaddressed :) I'm seeing a LOT more in your original post than just "we can't fix this alone." That much is true. But going on to say that Africans must be allowed to die so they can evolve and catch up is extreme and unreasonable.
It's always nice to find a reason not to make something "my problem." That's a great feeling. But I think you have gone in a pretty bad "us and them" direction with that.
pyramid6
Oct 27, 10:12 AM
I highly doubt Apple is the forth worse company in the world. Greenpeace is just trying to ride Apple's popularity. I love it when groups practice civil disobedience, get punished, and then complain about it. You break the rules, you are supposed to get punished. That is the point of civil disobedience. Anyway, Greenpeace isn't stupid, even if they have lost thier way.
pengu
Sep 17, 08:18 PM
Also CDMA isn't crappy it offers higherspeed than HSDPA while using less spectrum.
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:49 PM
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.
You say you're not missing the point, but your response immediately jumped back to "they have a right."
yes, we know. We aren't arguing what they have a right to do.
We are arguing about how stupid and arbitrary it is to enforce that right.
And your argument about the icons in the last paragraph makes no sense - why would someone want to use an image of a mac to represent a non-OS X box?
And, you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no solution for the developer other than making their software significantly worse - they can't use their own icons that depict the machine being connected to, they can't necessarily use the NAME of the machine being connected to - what is it they are supposed to do? List the machines by ip address?
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.
You say you're not missing the point, but your response immediately jumped back to "they have a right."
yes, we know. We aren't arguing what they have a right to do.
We are arguing about how stupid and arbitrary it is to enforce that right.
And your argument about the icons in the last paragraph makes no sense - why would someone want to use an image of a mac to represent a non-OS X box?
And, you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no solution for the developer other than making their software significantly worse - they can't use their own icons that depict the machine being connected to, they can't necessarily use the NAME of the machine being connected to - what is it they are supposed to do? List the machines by ip address?
BornAgainMac
Sep 5, 01:20 PM
Do you know a Tivo is a computer? It has a microprocessor and runs Linux. However, they don't try to make it a computer. That is why their idea has caught on.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.