thejedipunk
Jan 7, 09:22 PM
ITV is a private independant TV channel in the UK so Apple may run into trouble with that name for it's home media centre.
iTV is just Apple's in house development/prototype codename for the device. Jobs-san already said it was going to be given an official name.
iTV is just Apple's in house development/prototype codename for the device. Jobs-san already said it was going to be given an official name.
danielwsmithee
Nov 29, 03:32 PM
Yes, support for more formats and codecs than iTunes currently plays friendly with would be welcome.You know I originally thought that, but I kind of like the way it works now. I would much rather have a few codecs that work very well. Then play everything under the sun just not very well.
iMpathetic
Nov 27, 09:33 PM
For the rig in my sig...
NZXT Phantom :D
http://thebestcasescenario.com/oneslowz28/newsdesk/NZXT_Phantom/Phantom_white_1.jpg
http://thebestcasescenario.com/oneslowz28/newsdesk/NZXT_Phantom/Phantom_white_lit.jpg
WD Raptor
http://www.hellas.rs/slike/hard-diskovi/WD1500HLFS.jpg
NZXT Phantom :D
http://thebestcasescenario.com/oneslowz28/newsdesk/NZXT_Phantom/Phantom_white_1.jpg
http://thebestcasescenario.com/oneslowz28/newsdesk/NZXT_Phantom/Phantom_white_lit.jpg
WD Raptor
http://www.hellas.rs/slike/hard-diskovi/WD1500HLFS.jpg
floatingspirit
Jan 12, 01:36 PM
................... I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
syklee26
Sep 6, 02:15 PM
i know this is off topic but are they ever gonna do anything about the outrageous cost of .Mac subscription?
charlesdjones1
Apr 12, 07:08 PM
after flipping through some more pages on this forum, i came across someone's incredible mockup that shares similar features as what i was hoping for, mainly the larger screen. otherwise, his wasn't a simple 5 minute cut and paste like mine, but overall i think this is the direction apple should go in.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
flopticalcube
Apr 20, 02:33 PM
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
And would be redundant now that displayport carries audio and is easily converted to HDMI.
And would be redundant now that displayport carries audio and is easily converted to HDMI.
Charlie Sheen
Mar 24, 01:04 PM
next step amd cpus
DeSnousa
Apr 13, 11:59 PM
What computers do you have operating to get those points? You must be an IT admin or something surely they are not your computers?
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:13 PM
these prices seem a lot more like what I was thinking. Wishful? maybe, but this would be aggressive pricing, not keeping the current 17" and 20" where they are and throwing the 23" way over their marks.
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
floatingspirit
Jan 12, 01:36 PM
................... I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
twoodcc
Nov 27, 04:59 PM
well it depends on the resolution of the monitor. i don't really see this a big deal affecting me, but i can see alot of people buying them though. maybe it's good for Apple, but unless the 20" price comes down, doesn't really help me any
BruiserB
May 2, 04:18 PM
I guess that's way easier than dragging it to the trash?
sisyphus
Sep 1, 03:49 PM
It has seemed as obvious at almost every point in Apple's history within the past 4 years. That doesn't change a thing.
Apple had ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS had a noticable gap between its top-of-the-line consumer machine and it's "entry-level" professional machine. As much as I'd love a middle-tier headless Mac, I just don't think it's in the cards.
The difference now is that there is no crippled Mac Pro. The low end PowerMac was always crippled in some way to the mid and high end. There would always be an old motherboard, slower bus, less RAM...
This time the machines are consistent all the way across. Why? Because with the Woodcrest/Conroe differentiations they can actually create different categories.
Pros -> faster bus, 2 CPU (Woodcrest). Mac Pro
Prosumer -> Mid bus, 1 CPU (Conroe). Mac
Consumer -> Slower bus, quiet, one piece, slower CPU (Merom). iMac
Budget -> Slowest, minimalist comptuer, old tech (Yonah). Mac Mini
Seems pretty obvious. The hole left in the product line is the biggest yet, but the processor steps are VERY clear and not overlapping each other.
mini (Yonah) < iMac (Merom)< Mac (Conroe) < Mac Pro (2xWoodcrest)
Apple had ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS had a noticable gap between its top-of-the-line consumer machine and it's "entry-level" professional machine. As much as I'd love a middle-tier headless Mac, I just don't think it's in the cards.
The difference now is that there is no crippled Mac Pro. The low end PowerMac was always crippled in some way to the mid and high end. There would always be an old motherboard, slower bus, less RAM...
This time the machines are consistent all the way across. Why? Because with the Woodcrest/Conroe differentiations they can actually create different categories.
Pros -> faster bus, 2 CPU (Woodcrest). Mac Pro
Prosumer -> Mid bus, 1 CPU (Conroe). Mac
Consumer -> Slower bus, quiet, one piece, slower CPU (Merom). iMac
Budget -> Slowest, minimalist comptuer, old tech (Yonah). Mac Mini
Seems pretty obvious. The hole left in the product line is the biggest yet, but the processor steps are VERY clear and not overlapping each other.
mini (Yonah) < iMac (Merom)< Mac (Conroe) < Mac Pro (2xWoodcrest)
abrooks
Oct 23, 07:18 AM
You do know that you'll be getting a US-formatted keyboard and AC adapter, yes?
Worth it, he could end up saving several hundred pounds!
I always by my portables in America.
Worth it, he could end up saving several hundred pounds!
I always by my portables in America.
mandis
Mar 25, 03:55 PM
At this pace the iPad3 will come close to the PS3 in terms of performance when it is released next year...
I'm really impressed by the increasing performance of the ARM architecture. Mind you all this is coming from a tiny SoC which doesn't require cooling or any substantial power intake.
Impressive indeed!
Maybe we'll be seeing ARM based Desktops by the end of the decade... or sooner?
I'm really impressed by the increasing performance of the ARM architecture. Mind you all this is coming from a tiny SoC which doesn't require cooling or any substantial power intake.
Impressive indeed!
Maybe we'll be seeing ARM based Desktops by the end of the decade... or sooner?
shawnce
Aug 29, 09:45 AM
Assuming the rumor is correct (really the core duo is just fine for such a machine at this point in time)... it may allow Apple to drop prices on the mini which not only makes it available to more potential switchers but makes a little more room in their product line up for a mini tower.
A mini tower in the 1000-1600 dollar range would allow us to buy Macs for developers (as a second system often) and QA folks since they can run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X natively. It would allow the maximum flexibility to our teams and at a price point that matches with the Dell crap desktops systems we currently purchase.
We would still of course purchase Mac Pros for the developers that need them the most (as a primary system) but a mini tower would easily double or triple what we would purchase.
The Mac mini does work in the space but it is just a little underpowered on the IO and expansion front to be fully useful as a secondary developer system.
A mini tower in the 1000-1600 dollar range would allow us to buy Macs for developers (as a second system often) and QA folks since they can run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X natively. It would allow the maximum flexibility to our teams and at a price point that matches with the Dell crap desktops systems we currently purchase.
We would still of course purchase Mac Pros for the developers that need them the most (as a primary system) but a mini tower would easily double or triple what we would purchase.
The Mac mini does work in the space but it is just a little underpowered on the IO and expansion front to be fully useful as a secondary developer system.
hunkaburningluv
Mar 28, 05:19 PM
I stopped reading at "silky smooth 30fps". What the hell? Is this "silky smooth" for a timely epileptic? Talk about hype. I'm looking forward to the NGP more than anything else for portable gaming. I've been waiting for dual joysticks on a portable since playstation. Ironic, since Sony is the king of hype. Apple advertises games as part of their platform, yet doesn't have one accessory for gaming...and how many accessories for everything else? Screw that bipolar approach.
"Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span. "
This is just a misnomer for an era of 32x hardware to thrive in place of new consoles. It's killed console gaming for me. 30fps is a relic. It was mildly entertaining when, year after year, gamers defended it in light of shiny graphics. Now it's just embarassing.
Every now and then I rent a console game and end up setting it aside before beating it; because a nine foot screen and 30fps interactive media with a ton of screen tear does NOT mix well unless you include vomit and/or motion sickness. Then it's chunky goodness to the last dry heave.
there's a few misconceptions about the lifespan of consoles - Sony for instance - the PS2 had a 10 year lifespan, but it does overlap with the release of the PS3 - that's how it'll go with the PS4. As for the 360 - that won't be the only platform the MS has on the market - in a couple of years there will be another 'next gen' console from MS.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
"Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span. "
This is just a misnomer for an era of 32x hardware to thrive in place of new consoles. It's killed console gaming for me. 30fps is a relic. It was mildly entertaining when, year after year, gamers defended it in light of shiny graphics. Now it's just embarassing.
Every now and then I rent a console game and end up setting it aside before beating it; because a nine foot screen and 30fps interactive media with a ton of screen tear does NOT mix well unless you include vomit and/or motion sickness. Then it's chunky goodness to the last dry heave.
there's a few misconceptions about the lifespan of consoles - Sony for instance - the PS2 had a 10 year lifespan, but it does overlap with the release of the PS3 - that's how it'll go with the PS4. As for the 360 - that won't be the only platform the MS has on the market - in a couple of years there will be another 'next gen' console from MS.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
rezenclowd3
Jan 10, 07:33 PM
Americans mostly don't get the allure of a rallye type car. Ovals and 1/4 mile are about as sophisticated as we can manage. :p
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
Earendil
Nov 27, 04:08 PM
Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.
I still am failing to see a counter point.
We both agree that Apple has a higher quality display, that id required by professionals. We both agree that the prices a year ago were a good price, and competative. Now you are making a claim that the competition has lowered their prices (linky?), and that this proves me wrong. I've already stated that my quick searching revealed no such compition in that price point half of what Apple's is, and have put the ball in your court to show me otherwise. Surely if you are making these claims you are aware of a product?
It is not hard to find 20" LCD monitors that cost twice as much as Apple's (Check out NEC's site for example). So I'm failing to see an example of a similarly specced wide LCD to show me exactly how out of whack Apple is. All I hear is "too expensive!" and "100% more!!".
Sure, I'd like them cheaper too, but I'm not going to scream foul without being able to back it up with something.
I still am failing to see a counter point.
We both agree that Apple has a higher quality display, that id required by professionals. We both agree that the prices a year ago were a good price, and competative. Now you are making a claim that the competition has lowered their prices (linky?), and that this proves me wrong. I've already stated that my quick searching revealed no such compition in that price point half of what Apple's is, and have put the ball in your court to show me otherwise. Surely if you are making these claims you are aware of a product?
It is not hard to find 20" LCD monitors that cost twice as much as Apple's (Check out NEC's site for example). So I'm failing to see an example of a similarly specced wide LCD to show me exactly how out of whack Apple is. All I hear is "too expensive!" and "100% more!!".
Sure, I'd like them cheaper too, but I'm not going to scream foul without being able to back it up with something.
Horrortaxi
Mar 19, 01:39 AM
What people don't understand is that Apple is dying....
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead. I love my Macintoshes but Apple needs market share to grow !
Apple needs customers, Apple needs to start thinking out of their little 5% market share. The Ipod was a good example but you can't keep on counting on people to buy it. For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
We need a cheap Mac to bring in new Customers. Maybe its their first Mac experience.
This sounds like a conversation straight out of 1990. Apple vs. IBM--come on!
Apple is not going anywhere anytime soon. Whether their market share is 5%, 2%, or 15% is irrelevant. They make a profit. That will keep them around. Who says you have to oppressively dominate the field to stay in business? Okay, who besides Bill Gates?
You have the software thing backward. Safari and Final Cut Pro existed (and did dominate on the Mac platform) before Microsoft and Adobe pulled the plugs in thier products.
We do not need a cheap Mac. One of the things I love about the Mac is that you don't have the option to buy a piece of crap.
WOMBAT indeed!
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead. I love my Macintoshes but Apple needs market share to grow !
Apple needs customers, Apple needs to start thinking out of their little 5% market share. The Ipod was a good example but you can't keep on counting on people to buy it. For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
We need a cheap Mac to bring in new Customers. Maybe its their first Mac experience.
This sounds like a conversation straight out of 1990. Apple vs. IBM--come on!
Apple is not going anywhere anytime soon. Whether their market share is 5%, 2%, or 15% is irrelevant. They make a profit. That will keep them around. Who says you have to oppressively dominate the field to stay in business? Okay, who besides Bill Gates?
You have the software thing backward. Safari and Final Cut Pro existed (and did dominate on the Mac platform) before Microsoft and Adobe pulled the plugs in thier products.
We do not need a cheap Mac. One of the things I love about the Mac is that you don't have the option to buy a piece of crap.
WOMBAT indeed!
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 12:53 PM
Next you'll be telling us that the US President is an American, too.
Well some people think that's debatable ;).
Well some people think that's debatable ;).
Horrortaxi
Apr 15, 12:02 PM
Yes, Will Hunting, you might be smarter than me, but who cares? Are you smarter for knowing who Ernest Satow was? If you don't know who Lubomir Visnovsky is (without Googling) does that make you stupid? None of it matters.
Nobody said that you're stupid or a vain pretender of knowledge. At least nobody posted it. You do seem really defensive though. I only said you had some issues with ignorance, and I still stand by that. It worries me a little that you have to boast and convince us how cool you are. Or is it even us that you're trying to convince?
Nobody said that you're stupid or a vain pretender of knowledge. At least nobody posted it. You do seem really defensive though. I only said you had some issues with ignorance, and I still stand by that. It worries me a little that you have to boast and convince us how cool you are. Or is it even us that you're trying to convince?
No comments:
Post a Comment