strider42
Apr 18, 03:51 PM
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
toddybody
Apr 7, 11:50 AM
If the demand for touch panels increases then the manufacturers of touch panels will rejoice and expand their business thus increasing the supply. The real problem here is that RIM probably wants terms on touch panel production that are not all-too-inspiring to the manufacturers to warrant expansion. For example, Apple is confident that they will sell X units of iPads in Y units in 2012, and so on. So Apple prepays for what they need.
RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.
Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).
If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.
Next time you should try formulating a more organized post:p
Well said sir, well said:) Stay well!
RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.
Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).
If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.
Next time you should try formulating a more organized post:p
Well said sir, well said:) Stay well!
anonalidall
May 7, 11:22 AM
I use Mobileme every day and it comes through for me every time. I also use it knowing that when i'm reading my email it's just me reading it not some automatic data mining program watching my every move.
Think about this. Your life, your privacy and ability to communicate without someone watching was sold down the river for a pittance. It's seems fair to you because your are the one that gets capitalized on in a capitalist society.
OK, I'll grant you that MobileMe doesn't suck as much as I make it sound. I just don't like it and so I don't use it anymore. Fair enough.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
Think about this. Your life, your privacy and ability to communicate without someone watching was sold down the river for a pittance. It's seems fair to you because your are the one that gets capitalized on in a capitalist society.
OK, I'll grant you that MobileMe doesn't suck as much as I make it sound. I just don't like it and so I don't use it anymore. Fair enough.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 04:48 AM
Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
Hum, no it's not. Read the article I linked to and go back to the intro of the iPhone 4. It's 300 PPI at a normal viewing distance for a phone (12 inches). Otherwise it makes no sense. The size of a pixel is relative to its distance from your eye. The further away something it is, the smaller it becomes relatively and thus your eye has more trouble seeing it. Sitting further from your monitor can make the pixels iPhone 4 size in no time at all.
Hum, no it's not. Read the article I linked to and go back to the intro of the iPhone 4. It's 300 PPI at a normal viewing distance for a phone (12 inches). Otherwise it makes no sense. The size of a pixel is relative to its distance from your eye. The further away something it is, the smaller it becomes relatively and thus your eye has more trouble seeing it. Sitting further from your monitor can make the pixels iPhone 4 size in no time at all.
Westacular
Apr 23, 04:44 PM
I hope this means an increase in resolution of iTunes artwork. I know it's unrelated to the OS but one can hope!
Does Apple set a cap on that? I expect it's up to the publishers to put in their artwork, and they're more likely to blame if you're encountering low resolution stuff.
When you attach artwork to items yourself in iTunes, it can be extremely high-resolution -- not sure what or if there is a limit, but if it exists, it's high enough not to be a problem.
Does Apple set a cap on that? I expect it's up to the publishers to put in their artwork, and they're more likely to blame if you're encountering low resolution stuff.
When you attach artwork to items yourself in iTunes, it can be extremely high-resolution -- not sure what or if there is a limit, but if it exists, it's high enough not to be a problem.
dba7dba
Apr 18, 05:07 PM
Odd, the link you included in your argument states the Prada was "announced" on December 12, 2006.
The iPhone was announced on January 9, less than one month later.
And the Prada looks more like a BlackBerry than an iPhone to me. The Prada and iPhone are almost nothing alike, aside from the size and shape of the earhole.
LG Prada won a DESIGN award (meaning image was released) for LG Prada in Sep 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
EXCERPT
LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
The iPhone was announced on January 9, less than one month later.
And the Prada looks more like a BlackBerry than an iPhone to me. The Prada and iPhone are almost nothing alike, aside from the size and shape of the earhole.
LG Prada won a DESIGN award (meaning image was released) for LG Prada in Sep 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
EXCERPT
LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
dashiel
Apr 7, 11:53 AM
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
Personally I bet RIM is breathing a huge sigh of relief, by all accounts the PlayBook is as unfinished and rough around the edges as Honeycomb on the Xoom.
Personally I bet RIM is breathing a huge sigh of relief, by all accounts the PlayBook is as unfinished and rough around the edges as Honeycomb on the Xoom.
leetlamer
May 6, 08:05 AM
Lmfao. There is absolutely no way they are going to put ARM chips in desktop or laptop computers in the near future.
Its not gonna happen. You can't beat Intel in performance.
ARM is good because its low power. Thats great for phones and tablets, but for freaking desktops you need performance.
Its not gonna happen. You can't beat Intel in performance.
ARM is good because its low power. Thats great for phones and tablets, but for freaking desktops you need performance.
balamw
Apr 10, 06:20 PM
Finally, humour.
My calculator has been stuck on 58008 (http://www.cafepress.com/boobylicious3) for years. :p Or maybe it was just saying 07734?
B
My calculator has been stuck on 58008 (http://www.cafepress.com/boobylicious3) for years. :p Or maybe it was just saying 07734?
B
jaykk
May 8, 12:15 AM
if apple is serious about iAd, they will make mobileme free. More hits, more ad revenue.Mobileme is not attractive at all at this point, if they make it free, may be some additional users sign up.
brijazz
May 4, 03:40 PM
Fine. Seems like a logical move, but if Apple wants me to foot part of the bill for distributing their software (via my paid Internet connection) then I certainly expect a significant cut in the cost of the upgrade.
If you drive to the store to buy it instead, should they pay for your gas?
If you order it online, should they pay you for the bit of bandwidth that you used up in placing your order?
Maybe you'll be eco-friendly and walk to the store instead? Bill 'em for new soles on your shoes!
:rolleyes:
If you drive to the store to buy it instead, should they pay for your gas?
If you order it online, should they pay you for the bit of bandwidth that you used up in placing your order?
Maybe you'll be eco-friendly and walk to the store instead? Bill 'em for new soles on your shoes!
:rolleyes:
twoodcc
Jul 29, 09:23 PM
I'd buy in a second, even if I had a Razr.
i think i'll buy a Macbook instead
i think i'll buy a Macbook instead
inkswamp
May 4, 02:47 PM
Fine. Seems like a logical move, but if Apple wants me to foot part of the bill for distributing their software (via my paid Internet connection) then I certainly expect a significant cut in the cost of the upgrade.
fivetoadsloth
Apr 10, 02:12 AM
I didn't quite read the whole thread, and I've seen people trying to present definitive answers representing multiple possible answers. While I don't claim to be an end all source, math is one thing that I can do and do understand.
I was tempted not to post, but, I think understanding the order of operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations)/etc is something that is relatively important.
Multiple people have quoted the order : P(arenthes) E(xponents) M(ultiplication) D(ivision) A(ddition) S(ubtraction).
As stated, that is NOT totally accurate. Multiplication and division are the same operation, as are addition and subtraction. Thus, the order between them can be flipped. That is, P E D M A S is true, as is P E D M S A, as is P E M D S A.
If multiplication and division both appear you go from LEFT to RIGHT.
Parenthesis are implied multiplication.
So, first, in the parenthesis we have 12, so, 48/2(12). As that is written, one does 48/2=24*12. So, as the problem is written, the answer is 288. While the method of writing the problem is certainly not the best, the problem does, to my knowledge, only have one true answer.
An important note: not all calculators correctly apply the orders of operations. Any scientific calculator form the last 5 years or so should, and if it is outputting anything other then 288 I would be interested in knowing. Some pocket calulators with + - x � just go left to right.
Wolfram is, as usual, right. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29)
I was tempted not to post, but, I think understanding the order of operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations)/etc is something that is relatively important.
Multiple people have quoted the order : P(arenthes) E(xponents) M(ultiplication) D(ivision) A(ddition) S(ubtraction).
As stated, that is NOT totally accurate. Multiplication and division are the same operation, as are addition and subtraction. Thus, the order between them can be flipped. That is, P E D M A S is true, as is P E D M S A, as is P E M D S A.
If multiplication and division both appear you go from LEFT to RIGHT.
Parenthesis are implied multiplication.
So, first, in the parenthesis we have 12, so, 48/2(12). As that is written, one does 48/2=24*12. So, as the problem is written, the answer is 288. While the method of writing the problem is certainly not the best, the problem does, to my knowledge, only have one true answer.
An important note: not all calculators correctly apply the orders of operations. Any scientific calculator form the last 5 years or so should, and if it is outputting anything other then 288 I would be interested in knowing. Some pocket calulators with + - x � just go left to right.
Wolfram is, as usual, right. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29)
djkny
Sep 15, 06:56 PM
"Announced" on Tuesday, 9/19; ready for shipping in 10-15 days, maybe longer, once all of us C2D geeks spring for this.
Shipping date then will read: on or before 10/21. :eek:
Shipping date then will read: on or before 10/21. :eek:
aswitcher
Aug 4, 07:43 AM
Wining Switchers should be Apple's goal now.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
AaronEdwards
Apr 26, 04:47 PM
Re-Read your Porsche history.
Your understanding of the Porsche / VW relationship is backwards. It is Porsche that owns a stake in VW, not the other way around.
Actually, they are merging, and that's because of the huge debt that Porsche got due to trying to take over Volkswagen. (BTW, the current CEO of Porsche AG is from Volkswagen, that's not generally how you do it after you've taken over another company, more like what happens when you've lost.)
Your understanding of the Porsche / VW relationship is backwards. It is Porsche that owns a stake in VW, not the other way around.
Actually, they are merging, and that's because of the huge debt that Porsche got due to trying to take over Volkswagen. (BTW, the current CEO of Porsche AG is from Volkswagen, that's not generally how you do it after you've taken over another company, more like what happens when you've lost.)
wclyffe
Nov 20, 07:48 AM
Looks like they just flagged the Tomtom car kit as discontinued at BLT and are no longer carrying the item. Looking for a new place to order it around this price. Any thoughts?
vincenz
Mar 27, 07:04 AM
This would be very bad if true :(
aswitcher
Sep 11, 03:28 AM
i present you...
the mediamac:
http://www.twirl.ch/mc/other/mediamac.jpg
I would be happy if it was in aluminium and in black to allow better cooling. But that would be mighty fine.
Would be nice with a usb and firewire port in front as well.
the mediamac:
http://www.twirl.ch/mc/other/mediamac.jpg
I would be happy if it was in aluminium and in black to allow better cooling. But that would be mighty fine.
Would be nice with a usb and firewire port in front as well.
entatlrg
Apr 25, 11:12 AM
Facts? Who cares. We want DRAMA.
The Press sure sucks a lot of people in. Or, is there a lot of people in waiting to be sucked in by the Press?
The Press sure sucks a lot of people in. Or, is there a lot of people in waiting to be sucked in by the Press?
Chupa Chupa
Sep 11, 10:54 AM
I really expect all of the above - though "true video iPod" and 6G iPod I think are one in the same. The only logical way to have a widescreen iPod is to have a virtual scroll wheel.
As for the movie store...I think I remember SJ in an interview awhile back saying, while he likes the purchase model for music, movies lend themselves to the subscription model because most people only watch a movie once or twice, Star Wars geeks notwithstanding. So I think the movie store is going to be like a true movie store. If you want to buy a movie you can, but the emphasis will be more on a NetFlix type model. A $15/mo sub gets you 3 movies at a time, unlimited d/ls per mo. Alternatively, you could rent a single movie for $4, viewable for a week or so. For people who don't have time to convert a DVD to an iPod viewable format that makes sense. Buying for $15 or $10 isn't going to excite anyone I don't think.
As for the movie store...I think I remember SJ in an interview awhile back saying, while he likes the purchase model for music, movies lend themselves to the subscription model because most people only watch a movie once or twice, Star Wars geeks notwithstanding. So I think the movie store is going to be like a true movie store. If you want to buy a movie you can, but the emphasis will be more on a NetFlix type model. A $15/mo sub gets you 3 movies at a time, unlimited d/ls per mo. Alternatively, you could rent a single movie for $4, viewable for a week or so. For people who don't have time to convert a DVD to an iPod viewable format that makes sense. Buying for $15 or $10 isn't going to excite anyone I don't think.
MacRumors
Apr 7, 09:27 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/07/apple-buys-up-touch-panels-delaying-rims-tablet-release/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/133658-blackberry_playbook_apps_500.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/133658-blackberry_playbook_apps_500.jpg