AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:40 PM
You know what's sleazy? Working with a partner while secretly copying that partner's work to create a competing product.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
The Beatles did this to Apple, oh wait, they had Apple Records and the Apple logo for over 5 years before Apple Computer existed. But I'm sure that is overlooked.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
The Beatles did this to Apple, oh wait, they had Apple Records and the Apple logo for over 5 years before Apple Computer existed. But I'm sure that is overlooked.
neiltc13
Apr 28, 04:45 PM
Where did you buy Zune hardware in the UK? And since we didn't even get the Zune subscription service until September 2010 it can't have been much use to you!
Sorry that post was a bit confusing. The part about my purchases and what I think is good were completely unrelated :p
I haven't got Zune hardware, but I have used it while on holiday in USA. Very fast and responsive with a unique and very usable UI.
Sorry that post was a bit confusing. The part about my purchases and what I think is good were completely unrelated :p
I haven't got Zune hardware, but I have used it while on holiday in USA. Very fast and responsive with a unique and very usable UI.
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 02:56 PM
And replace backlight with Braille print? Cool, it would save some battery juice at night. By the way, I don't look at the keyboard when typing. Are you?
I don't need it either, but it looks cool :)
I don't need it either, but it looks cool :)
Doctor Q
Sep 15, 06:43 PM
Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.What if it supported NuBus cards?
OK, that was a (bad) joke, since I think NuBus was one of those Apple-only inventions from the past.
But why would you NOT want Apple's phone, szark? Is is that you don't want a camera phone or music phone in the first place, or that you expect it to be priced too high? Without knowing more about it, how do we know it's not going to be at least as good as the phones we have now? Plus an Apple logo.
I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.What if it supported NuBus cards?
OK, that was a (bad) joke, since I think NuBus was one of those Apple-only inventions from the past.
But why would you NOT want Apple's phone, szark? Is is that you don't want a camera phone or music phone in the first place, or that you expect it to be priced too high? Without knowing more about it, how do we know it's not going to be at least as good as the phones we have now? Plus an Apple logo.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:52 AM
The cost of litigation would not even remotely approached 100 million. The cost of losing (ie, having a judgement against apple), now that would have probably exceeded 100 million. When a company is not sure about it's position, the best thing is to settle. You don't see IBM settling their Linux suit, do you?. And SCOunix hasn't even paid close to 100 mil in lawyers fees yet and they are fighting a losing battle..
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
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.
jnguyen
Sep 15, 05:54 PM
What are the odds of them using this new phone idea and turning it into a smartphone, maybe restarting the Newton project? As opposed of just having iTunes compatibale features only?
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 20, 01:47 PM
I think the main problem is people stating, or at least THINKING they have privacy rights. You do, limited, but you do. The problem is, those rights REALLLLY don't apply when your on someone else's property. AKA T-Mobiles, AT&T or Verizon. You don't OWN their networks, you use them, you rent them. Just like a landlord can give you notice and say, 'I'm going to come check out the house/apt' AT&T can say (albiet in tiny print in a 300 page TOS) I reserve the right to collect your data. You sign the dotted line, get your fancy phone and don't give a ****. Thats untill someone treads on the truth then you become a tight-ass over it.
If a bunch of script kiddies on 4Chan can track down the 'Dog **** Lady' in Japan, you people don't got a chance in HELL. You got Cell Phones, and subscribe to internet forums, your IP is splayed all over the internet like beer at a frat party and your crying because a file tracks what cell tower your connected to? Theres a lot worse things then Death, this ain't one of them.
If a bunch of script kiddies on 4Chan can track down the 'Dog **** Lady' in Japan, you people don't got a chance in HELL. You got Cell Phones, and subscribe to internet forums, your IP is splayed all over the internet like beer at a frat party and your crying because a file tracks what cell tower your connected to? Theres a lot worse things then Death, this ain't one of them.
VanNess
Sep 1, 04:02 AM
Well, if any of this is true, I'm going to take a pass on this one.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
~Shard~
Sep 10, 11:50 AM
Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:
What kind of Engineer? A Train Engineer? :p :D
For the record, I'm an Electronics Systems Engineer - not sure if I see what you're getting at... How is "everyone suddenly an Engineer" in this thread? :confused:
What kind of Engineer? A Train Engineer? :p :D
For the record, I'm an Electronics Systems Engineer - not sure if I see what you're getting at... How is "everyone suddenly an Engineer" in this thread? :confused:
QCassidy352
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
I am quoting myself! arn went ahead and added to question mark to the title.
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
iScott428
Mar 23, 05:43 PM
So much for freedom. Leave it Apple!
androiphone
Apr 20, 02:00 PM
*Shrug* It is probably a feature enabled on the majority of GSM carriers for statistical purposes. Again, I don't see the problem. If this information is used to improve my network coverage, why should I care? If I'm not part of a secret terrorist cell, I don't see how my life is being negatively impacted by this information especially if it does not have any identifiable information attached to it.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
seriously did you not watch the video?
mobile phone providers collect location data themselves from all phone automatically, this information is separately collected away from the mobile networks and is not (as we know) not given to the networks (and apple don't even collect it) and only stored locally.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
seriously did you not watch the video?
mobile phone providers collect location data themselves from all phone automatically, this information is separately collected away from the mobile networks and is not (as we know) not given to the networks (and apple don't even collect it) and only stored locally.
paddleboat
Oct 27, 07:22 PM
I had to have a good laugh following the greenpeace links from the macrumors article.
* the "making waves" site had a pic and an article stating "our volunteers outside weere handing out real organic green apples". Only thing is the apples in the picture are red!
*what are greenpeace more upset about...? the fact that there are tonnes of electronic waste in a garbage dump? or the fact that there are hundreds of poor and underpriviledged kids running around the dump collecting the waste in order to survive? I am sure that by fixing Apple's problems they will remove these kids from the dump! What is supposed to be in a garbage dump....the waste or the scavaging kids?
* the "making waves" site had a pic and an article stating "our volunteers outside weere handing out real organic green apples". Only thing is the apples in the picture are red!
*what are greenpeace more upset about...? the fact that there are tonnes of electronic waste in a garbage dump? or the fact that there are hundreds of poor and underpriviledged kids running around the dump collecting the waste in order to survive? I am sure that by fixing Apple's problems they will remove these kids from the dump! What is supposed to be in a garbage dump....the waste or the scavaging kids?
leekohler
Apr 10, 11:37 PM
Taxes, cell phone fees, gas and car prices are higher here. Pay for professional jobs also seems relatively lower compared to the US.
Yeah, plus medical bills don't bankrupt you personally. I'll take what you've got up there.
Yeah, plus medical bills don't bankrupt you personally. I'll take what you've got up there.
LaMerVipere
Oct 12, 04:58 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
apolloa
Apr 30, 06:09 PM
Thing is though... if the new top end MacBook Pro 2.3 can keep up with and beat even a current 8 core Mac Pro in some instances and trounce the quad core model, just how powerful is a top end Sandy Bridge iMac going to be :eek::confused:
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
MaxBurn
Dec 31, 08:52 AM
Not really necessary, yet. Forums here will inform most of us when something really nasty gets out there if ever, listen to the users not a campain.
turbo79
Nov 16, 07:29 AM
When the iPhone 3G was first released, I rushed out and bought one. A year down the line, I gave it to a family member and switched to a Blackberry Bold.
I absolutely love the thoughtful design that goes into all Apple products, I own an Apple desktop, an Apple laptop, an Apple iPod and various other Apple paraphernalia. However, I didn't gel with the crippled iPhone and am much happier with my Blackberry.
It has 75% of the fun features of the iPhone and a slew of others that make it a smarter choice - background apps, Google Latitude running all the time, emails arriving instantly, uncapped international data roaming for �20 extra a month on o2 amongst many others - and being able to type an entire email whilst you walk!
Due to RIM not having a stranglehold over the device's application pool (unlike Apple), there are a lot of fugly applications available, but also a lot of great ones. If you're starting out with the Blackberry, I highly recommend Ubertwitter, BeWeather, Google Sync, Facebook and the Flickr Uploader as high quality apps.
I absolutely love the thoughtful design that goes into all Apple products, I own an Apple desktop, an Apple laptop, an Apple iPod and various other Apple paraphernalia. However, I didn't gel with the crippled iPhone and am much happier with my Blackberry.
It has 75% of the fun features of the iPhone and a slew of others that make it a smarter choice - background apps, Google Latitude running all the time, emails arriving instantly, uncapped international data roaming for �20 extra a month on o2 amongst many others - and being able to type an entire email whilst you walk!
Due to RIM not having a stranglehold over the device's application pool (unlike Apple), there are a lot of fugly applications available, but also a lot of great ones. If you're starting out with the Blackberry, I highly recommend Ubertwitter, BeWeather, Google Sync, Facebook and the Flickr Uploader as high quality apps.
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 03:57 PM
But as I said, for HOME viewing, is there a precedent for ads?
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:58 PM
See the roll eyes after his post, I think he was being sarcastic.
No, I truly hate that place.. and all it stands for.
No, I truly hate that place.. and all it stands for.
Teddy's
Sep 12, 09:16 PM
However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell.
NO!
my MacBook Pro is solid and strong as my previous PowerBook
No complains here
NO!
my MacBook Pro is solid and strong as my previous PowerBook
No complains here
Dmac77
Apr 24, 11:54 PM
Sorry, but I'm not. I try and avoid idiots on the highway. But why do I get the feeling that you are going to tell me that driving 90+ is perfectly safe cause you are such a wonderful driver.:rolleyes:
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
DTphonehome
Aug 23, 05:51 PM
Another spin on all of this is the fact they just get 100 million from apple and now they decided to spend mega bucks on it over here in the uk up untill reacently we hardly sore a advert for ipods or apple computers saw a lot of adds for creative zen but bugger all for ipods which is better i wonder ie market leader who dosnt push the advertising or the people who advertise a lot and still dont have a large market share ....
To put it politely theres to many fingers in this pie and end of the day i know which system i prefer i aint saying its apple and its ipod either :D
Putting 4 periods after a paragraph doesn't make up for no periods in the paragraph itself.
To put it politely theres to many fingers in this pie and end of the day i know which system i prefer i aint saying its apple and its ipod either :D
Putting 4 periods after a paragraph doesn't make up for no periods in the paragraph itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment