Cameront9
Aug 23, 05:32 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System. I'm still angry that this patent was even granted in the first place.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try. However, when the patent was granted to them, they had a weapon in their war against the iPod. Rather than concentrate on making a better product, they used this weapon as a way to get some quick cash. They bet on Apple settling and not going to court.
In the meantime, MS comes in and announces Zune, which threatens other WMA compatible players like Creative's offerings. Creative now thinks they need a backup plan and decides that during the negotiations with Apple, they can get them to give them a license to produce iPod-approved products. Now they have a fallback incase their own offerings fizzle out.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
arcite
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.... Oh and beat Microsoft in first Quarter profits. :cool:
iSee
Apr 25, 04:15 PM
I hope I like the new design as much as I like the current unibody design...
I'll probably be looking to replace my original 2006 MBP after this comes out...
I'll probably be looking to replace my original 2006 MBP after this comes out...
rmhop81
Apr 22, 10:11 AM
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
i didn't ignore anything. i stream pandora all the time when i'm on the go and while i'm at the house. my work has wifi so i just connect to that and my house wifi while i'm there. I have a buddy here at work that streams netflix and tons of other stuff but refuses to connect to wifi. he uses close to 10gb of data monthly and has still not received any message from AT&T.
My point is there are a lot of people that just don't connect to wifi when they are around it free, they just rely on their cell service instead. The reason i connect is bc when i'm looking online it's quicker internet wise then the 3g.
I'm not wanting anyone to change. but you're arguing that this service isn't great...when in reality it's just not great for you.
I like to live minimally....so having a dvd collection or cd collection of physical media does not interest me. Apparently, others think the same way or the cloud service would not exist. The service is not for you. Go back to ripping cds to your local storage device and making play list after play list and sync all ur music each time u want a variety.
Many people are the same way with books. My MIL has like 1,500 books in her house and just sees no value in a kindle and all that it provides.
I get it, people enjoy their "stuff".
i didn't ignore anything. i stream pandora all the time when i'm on the go and while i'm at the house. my work has wifi so i just connect to that and my house wifi while i'm there. I have a buddy here at work that streams netflix and tons of other stuff but refuses to connect to wifi. he uses close to 10gb of data monthly and has still not received any message from AT&T.
My point is there are a lot of people that just don't connect to wifi when they are around it free, they just rely on their cell service instead. The reason i connect is bc when i'm looking online it's quicker internet wise then the 3g.
I'm not wanting anyone to change. but you're arguing that this service isn't great...when in reality it's just not great for you.
I like to live minimally....so having a dvd collection or cd collection of physical media does not interest me. Apparently, others think the same way or the cloud service would not exist. The service is not for you. Go back to ripping cds to your local storage device and making play list after play list and sync all ur music each time u want a variety.
Many people are the same way with books. My MIL has like 1,500 books in her house and just sees no value in a kindle and all that it provides.
I get it, people enjoy their "stuff".
FX120
Apr 16, 12:50 PM
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
1984
Sep 14, 04:53 AM
I think that the phone interface won't have a click-wheel. Rather, it will be all screen with an on-screen wheel changing to an on-screen keypad. No slider action whatsoever. Maybe a hard switch for on/off, answer, and phonebook, but that's about all I'd put on the phone. It'll save on cost and hardware complexity too, not having to include a wheel.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
puckhead193
Sep 19, 01:34 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
jacollins
Apr 20, 12:59 PM
There is no proof that it is sending that information to anyone.
[conspiracy hat]
Ah, so the REAL reason for the humongous Apple data center with petabytes of storage? dun dun duuuun...
[/conspiracy hat]
:)
[conspiracy hat]
Ah, so the REAL reason for the humongous Apple data center with petabytes of storage? dun dun duuuun...
[/conspiracy hat]
:)
4God
Aug 28, 12:58 PM
Maybe because most manufacturers have started selling Core 2 Duo computers but Apple hasn't.
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
I guess Apple needs to change their "update tuesdays" to match the competition eh? In other words, update on other days as needed.
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
I guess Apple needs to change their "update tuesdays" to match the competition eh? In other words, update on other days as needed.
taxiapple
Apr 4, 12:08 PM
It is not like a mall rent a cop went up and shot the suspect in the head.
Two of them were armed and 40 shots were exchanged.
one bad guy is dead and two were captured.
Two of them were armed and 40 shots were exchanged.
one bad guy is dead and two were captured.
mterlouw
Sep 4, 03:25 PM
I think it is the highly anticipated iToilet with universal iPod dock and count 'em four AppleTalk ports.
Flowbee
Aug 31, 09:30 PM
I actually have that cable. I've only used it a couple of times on my TV for kicks. After seeing the quality though, I decided never to do it again. :D Besides, all of the stuff I have on my iPod Video, I have on DVD. I just use it at work during lunch sometimes, or on trips. But hooking your iPod up to your TV should be done only if you have no other choice IMO. :)
Well, if I hadn't downloaded the Lost episodes from the iTMS, I might have agreed with you. The fact is, they look better than I expected.
I've found that videos downloaded from the iTMS generally look better on my TV than DVDs I've ripped and encoded for the iPod myself. I've tried the maximum iPod-compatible quality settings, and still cant get as sharp a picture as the Lost episodes I have. Except during really dark scenes, it's easy to forget I'm not just watching regular TV. It's obviously not nearly as good as a DVD, but it's not YouTube either. That being said, I have standard definition TV... no HD here. YMMV
I still think Apple will have to up the video quality if they want people to start buying downloads instead of actual discs.
Well, if I hadn't downloaded the Lost episodes from the iTMS, I might have agreed with you. The fact is, they look better than I expected.
I've found that videos downloaded from the iTMS generally look better on my TV than DVDs I've ripped and encoded for the iPod myself. I've tried the maximum iPod-compatible quality settings, and still cant get as sharp a picture as the Lost episodes I have. Except during really dark scenes, it's easy to forget I'm not just watching regular TV. It's obviously not nearly as good as a DVD, but it's not YouTube either. That being said, I have standard definition TV... no HD here. YMMV
I still think Apple will have to up the video quality if they want people to start buying downloads instead of actual discs.
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:15 PM
The device would not make a lot of sense by itself. There is more to this. Most people are waiting for a Media Center system. Sounds like the device would replace some cables that you can get for 40 bucks. I am refering to the cables that allow you to connect your Mac to the TV.
Maybe I am dense, but why stream it to the TV wen a mini can connect to the TV after downloading the show? Maybe to send it to multiple TVs in the house at the same time? Sounds expensive and short lived.
Need hear more, a single device and movie downloads seem to be only part of the picture.
Maybe I am dense, but why stream it to the TV wen a mini can connect to the TV after downloading the show? Maybe to send it to multiple TVs in the house at the same time? Sounds expensive and short lived.
Need hear more, a single device and movie downloads seem to be only part of the picture.
johndoejohndoes
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have a ODD.
pink-pony115
Sep 4, 08:01 PM
Holiday season fast approaching...there's no way they will enter shopping season without a new iPod lineup. Period.
If they do, I'm dumping my stock.:p
And Appleinsider is sandbagging - hedging their bets that at least a portion of what they are reporting is true.
Well said iGary. I bought apple stock right before the iPod got hot. My friends are kicking themselves because they didn't buy apple. :rolleyes:
If they do, I'm dumping my stock.:p
And Appleinsider is sandbagging - hedging their bets that at least a portion of what they are reporting is true.
Well said iGary. I bought apple stock right before the iPod got hot. My friends are kicking themselves because they didn't buy apple. :rolleyes:
KnightWRX
Apr 19, 08:01 PM
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
After having seen the actual claims, I don't think so. Apple was forced to do this. Notice there are quite a few trademark claims in there, relating to icon design, and trade dress claims.
The problem with Trademarks is that if Apple doesn't enforce them, they will lose them. As such, their hand is forced in this. However, just the trademark claims would make for one small suit and would make it so some of them might get thrown out. Enter the design patent claims to "pad" the lawsuit and to use as bargaining chips.
In the end, Apple may just drop the patent claims during settlement negotations and get awards for all their trademarks, which is probably what they are seeking.
After having seen the actual claims, I don't think so. Apple was forced to do this. Notice there are quite a few trademark claims in there, relating to icon design, and trade dress claims.
The problem with Trademarks is that if Apple doesn't enforce them, they will lose them. As such, their hand is forced in this. However, just the trademark claims would make for one small suit and would make it so some of them might get thrown out. Enter the design patent claims to "pad" the lawsuit and to use as bargaining chips.
In the end, Apple may just drop the patent claims during settlement negotations and get awards for all their trademarks, which is probably what they are seeking.
Clive At Five
Sep 19, 02:08 PM
As stated by others already, this bodes very well for Apple signing other studios onto the plan. I would not be surprised one bit if we see it by the end of the month, even.
-Clive
-Clive
LanPhantom
Mar 23, 06:07 PM
Not to mention, operating a phone while driving is becoming illegal in most states due to distracted driving. I figure there would be a bunch of drunk people using this app while driving drunk? Geez.
I got an idea...what about an app that tells ME where the drunk drivers are so I can stay away from THEM?
Now there's an app I would pay for!
I got an idea...what about an app that tells ME where the drunk drivers are so I can stay away from THEM?
Now there's an app I would pay for!
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:08 AM
Whoa..
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Guess they realized they couldn't win..
Please read my above posts. :-)
The only things I'd like to add is that $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple. Apple has $10 billion in cash. That money isn't stuffed in Steve Jobs' mattress, it's being invested in short-term investment vehicles that is producing a good return. Even if Apple stuck it in a plain ol' savings account, the $10 billion would be generating around $300 million a year in interest alone, never mind the fact that Apple is adding $3 billion a year to their cash horde.
Secondly, Apple has sold billions of dollars of iPods over the years. It will sell untold billions of dollars more into the future.
For Creative to settle for a mere $100 million when the iPod is virtually guaranteed to generate tens of billions of dollars going forward is sheer lunancy if Creative was really confident about winning.
In fact, the fact that they settled for such a small sum shows that Creative was sweating bullets about losing it all. Apple was the one dictating the terms here.
Creative pays Apple back as it collects additional licensing fees? Sounds like a loan to me.
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
iAlan
Jul 14, 10:51 AM
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time...
...In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
Posts like the one from ksz above just remind me how computer-illiterate I am
Reciprocal of frequency
No idea what that means
At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds
Isn't picoseconds a character from one of those Japanese card games?
Propagation delays
Isn't that something about people not having children till later in life, thus an aging population?
Anyway, let's hope Apple can bring something to market that is leaps above Windows boxes (and not the ones you put flowes in outside your house) and in a nice new enclosure
Fingers crossed
:D :D :p :D :D
...In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
Posts like the one from ksz above just remind me how computer-illiterate I am
Reciprocal of frequency
No idea what that means
At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds
Isn't picoseconds a character from one of those Japanese card games?
Propagation delays
Isn't that something about people not having children till later in life, thus an aging population?
Anyway, let's hope Apple can bring something to market that is leaps above Windows boxes (and not the ones you put flowes in outside your house) and in a nice new enclosure
Fingers crossed
:D :D :p :D :D
aafuss1
Sep 4, 07:09 PM
Disney and Viacom movies could be the first movies offered.
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 5, 07:48 PM
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
iLife is getting big :eek:
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
iLife is getting big :eek:
TMay
Apr 22, 12:24 PM
True, but I doubt Apple will put them in their machines and/or peripherals. I'd love to keep a third offsite backup of my information with BDXL, and I can with 3rd party hardware.
I think one of the biggest things holding me back though is the price of the discs.
Same here! 100% same here!
I have been holding back on buying a 13" Air for the backlit keyboard and Thunderbolt.
If I get both it'll be a definite buy. If I get just TB, then I may just consider the MBP.
Taiyo Yuden bd-r are under 2 bucks for 25GB. That's not a big deal in my opinion.
I think one of the biggest things holding me back though is the price of the discs.
Same here! 100% same here!
I have been holding back on buying a 13" Air for the backlit keyboard and Thunderbolt.
If I get both it'll be a definite buy. If I get just TB, then I may just consider the MBP.
Taiyo Yuden bd-r are under 2 bucks for 25GB. That's not a big deal in my opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment