kgtenacious
May 2, 03:52 PM
Are we merely targets for advertising, or are we human?
Yes.
Yes.
DESTOROYER
Jan 15, 05:52 PM
To all of you saying Blu-Ray, do you really think Apple is going to put that in their computers if they are trying to get digital distribution to work? I just don't see it happening. The Air is nice, but I think it should have been a little bit cheaper and have a user replaceable battery. It might be my next computer, because I need a laptop, and I don't like the design of the Macbook. Also, I see the same vision that Apple sees and agree with them that in a few more years, you won't need a CD/DVD Drive. The only thing I was wanting was for Steve to come out with his One Last Thing, and show us something truly amazing, but there is always WWDC!
Eraserhead
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
I'd have thought some of the people at a branch of McDonalds would have to have some sort of security training...
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:10 PM
you tube it
more...
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 07:12 AM
Apple Gets French Support in Music Compatibility Case
By THOMAS CRAMPTON
Published: July 29, 2006
PARIS, July 28 � The French constitutional council, the country�s highest judicial body, has declared major aspects of the so-called iPod law unconstitutional, undermining some controversial aspects of the legislation.
� Apple�s lawyers might want to drink a glass of French Champagne today, but not a whole bottle,� said Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property. �The constitutional council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law.�
Released late Thursday, the council�s 12-page legal finding made frequent reference to the 1789 Declaration on Human Rights and concluded that the law violated the constitutional protections of property.
The decision affects Apple�s market-dominant iTunes Music Store by undermining the government�s original intention, which was to force Apple and others to sell music online that would be playable on any device. Apple�s iPod is the only portable music device that can play music purchased on iTunes, which lead rivals to complain about anti-competitive practices.
Although the ruling could still require companies like Apple to make music sold online to be compatible with other hand-held devices, it said that the companies could not be forced to do so without receiving compensation. The council also eliminated reduced fines for file sharing.
�The constitutional council effectively highlighted the importance of intellectual property rights,� Mr. Menard said, emphasizing that Apple and other companies must be paid for sharing their copy-protection technology.
The law, which had been approved by the French Senate and National Assembly last month, was brought for review at the demand of more than 100 members of the National Assembly. The council�s review of whether the law fits within the French Constitution�s framework is one of the final steps before a law is promulgated. It now could take effect as altered by the council or the government could bring it once more before the Parliament.
The French minister of culture, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, advocated enforced interoperability as a way to ensure diverse cultural offerings on the Internet by limiting technical constraints on digital works.
While the constitutional council highlighted the need for compensation, it was not such good news for Apple and other companies that the principle of forced interoperability remained in place, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal director of the Association of Audionautes, a group opposed to copy restrictions.
�It is good news for Apple because they receive monetary compensation, but much bigger bad news if it forces them to license iTunes,� he said. Link (requires login) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/technology/29music.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin)
By THOMAS CRAMPTON
Published: July 29, 2006
PARIS, July 28 � The French constitutional council, the country�s highest judicial body, has declared major aspects of the so-called iPod law unconstitutional, undermining some controversial aspects of the legislation.
� Apple�s lawyers might want to drink a glass of French Champagne today, but not a whole bottle,� said Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property. �The constitutional council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law.�
Released late Thursday, the council�s 12-page legal finding made frequent reference to the 1789 Declaration on Human Rights and concluded that the law violated the constitutional protections of property.
The decision affects Apple�s market-dominant iTunes Music Store by undermining the government�s original intention, which was to force Apple and others to sell music online that would be playable on any device. Apple�s iPod is the only portable music device that can play music purchased on iTunes, which lead rivals to complain about anti-competitive practices.
Although the ruling could still require companies like Apple to make music sold online to be compatible with other hand-held devices, it said that the companies could not be forced to do so without receiving compensation. The council also eliminated reduced fines for file sharing.
�The constitutional council effectively highlighted the importance of intellectual property rights,� Mr. Menard said, emphasizing that Apple and other companies must be paid for sharing their copy-protection technology.
The law, which had been approved by the French Senate and National Assembly last month, was brought for review at the demand of more than 100 members of the National Assembly. The council�s review of whether the law fits within the French Constitution�s framework is one of the final steps before a law is promulgated. It now could take effect as altered by the council or the government could bring it once more before the Parliament.
The French minister of culture, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, advocated enforced interoperability as a way to ensure diverse cultural offerings on the Internet by limiting technical constraints on digital works.
While the constitutional council highlighted the need for compensation, it was not such good news for Apple and other companies that the principle of forced interoperability remained in place, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal director of the Association of Audionautes, a group opposed to copy restrictions.
�It is good news for Apple because they receive monetary compensation, but much bigger bad news if it forces them to license iTunes,� he said. Link (requires login) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/technology/29music.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin)
STTMac
Apr 15, 01:29 PM
This a very bad render fake picture kind.... Where did you see any apple product with that ugly back edge??? If you open the metadata of the picture with aperture you'll see.... well a BIG nothing no signature from any camera that may be used to take the picture... So pixel mix, noise on the render, bad shadow from the light source... the list may keep going... Try harder dude this is a very bad FAKE!!!
You put in a bad light the iPhone much bad that your light from the render...:confused:
You put in a bad light the iPhone much bad that your light from the render...:confused:
more...
Stella
Mar 28, 03:31 PM
Apple does not offer all of its own apps in the app store. Is Final Cut Studio in the app store?
I'm betting the net Final Cut will be though!
The 2011 Apple Design awards have become pretty meaningless.. last year OSX apps weren't, IRC, eligible, only iOS.
I'm betting the net Final Cut will be though!
The 2011 Apple Design awards have become pretty meaningless.. last year OSX apps weren't, IRC, eligible, only iOS.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 04:00 PM
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
Sources? Plz. :cool:
Sources? Plz. :cool:
more...
RalfTheDog
Apr 8, 12:48 PM
Why would you run a promotion on something that sells out the moment they come into inventory? Sales are for Android products that can't be moved any other way.
Perhaps it is something like, "Purchase an Android device and we will let you buy an iPad."
Perhaps it is something like, "Purchase an Android device and we will let you buy an iPad."
.JPG "cute quotes for oyfriend. i")
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Indeed.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
more...
spicyapple
Aug 7, 04:21 PM
Remember, the original 22" Cinema Display sold for $3999. And at the time, buying one in Canada with an exchange rate of 1.5 meant the lcd sold for nearly $6,000 CDN. :eek:
$2000 for 30" LCD... haha that's cheap! :D
$2000 for 30" LCD... haha that's cheap! :D
aricher
Oct 3, 12:20 PM
Just 97 days to go. :)
more...
arn
Oct 10, 07:32 PM
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
Coolerking
Sep 12, 05:40 AM
Here's a question: Would this IMovie store's movies work on something other than an Ipod, say, a PSP? If that happens you could kiss the UMD's goodbye COMPLETELY.
more...
wordoflife
May 2, 09:41 AM
I kinda liked the fact i could look at where I've been with my phone.
I can see how this update will have "battery life improvements" now that the phone is not going to be tracking our movements 24/7 even when all location services are shut off.
The phone tracked movements through cell towers, not GPS. And your phone is always connected to cell towers anyways so nothing is changing in terms of battery life. Also, nothing is really changing in this update except the fact that you won't be able to access the location file.
I can see how this update will have "battery life improvements" now that the phone is not going to be tracking our movements 24/7 even when all location services are shut off.
The phone tracked movements through cell towers, not GPS. And your phone is always connected to cell towers anyways so nothing is changing in terms of battery life. Also, nothing is really changing in this update except the fact that you won't be able to access the location file.
RichP
Aug 13, 12:13 PM
klaus,
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
more...
yg17
Mar 4, 11:55 AM
ooops...
gop takes unprecedented 10-point lead on generic ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/gop-unprecedented-lead-generic-ballot.aspx)
republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
princeton, nj -- republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the gop's largest so far this year and is its largest in gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/gallupspaces/production/cms/poll/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
2010 != 2012
gop takes unprecedented 10-point lead on generic ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/gop-unprecedented-lead-generic-ballot.aspx)
republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
princeton, nj -- republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the gop's largest so far this year and is its largest in gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/gallupspaces/production/cms/poll/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
2010 != 2012
AlBDamned
Nov 10, 03:11 PM
Overall I'm much happier with this game than I ever was with Modern Warfare 2 which I only ever played FFA on and people always used to cheat by using Tactical Insertion to sit next to each other and get free kills.
Free-for-all is fun, and I agree that the TI cheat was irritating, but FFA is really only scratching the surface of the multiplayer. Either way, there's no doubting for me that Black Ops is jerky, graphically and sonically inferior, and basically a poor cousin. Roll on MW3. I think I might sell Black Ops it's that bad.
Free-for-all is fun, and I agree that the TI cheat was irritating, but FFA is really only scratching the surface of the multiplayer. Either way, there's no doubting for me that Black Ops is jerky, graphically and sonically inferior, and basically a poor cousin. Roll on MW3. I think I might sell Black Ops it's that bad.
TEG
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
OS X was unique when it was released, Apple did not include it with systems until June and it wasn't the default boot until almost a year later.
I was given a PowerBook G4 500 when I graduated from High School, when we went to pick it up, the salesmen were surprised that it came with OS X, and doubled RAM at no extra cost. I didn't install OS X the first time until July, shortly after I arrived at college. I enjoyed many aspects of the system, except for the inability to run games like Sim City 3000 in Classic Mode, and issues related to attaching TVs via the SVideo connector, not to mention the lack of a DVD player. Between July and the release of 10.1 in September/October, I'd actually had to have my system sent back to Apple 3 times due to screen/Video Card issues. Each time, when they reformatted the hard drive and installed OS X they did it a different time. The first time both OS X and OS9 were on the same partition, in the second, they were separate, and the third, they were separate, and there was another partition for data. After the third time, I reformatted again, and followed the recommended procedure to install OS X and OS 9, including installing OS X first, then installing OS 9 as a New OS. After 10.1 came out, I began booting into OS 9 less and less, until after 10.5 came out, and I was stuck on Tiger, I actually loaded OS 9 onto my iPod and would boot of of it when I needed. Now, there are only two or three things I could think of still wanting OS 9 for, like SC2K or Myst, but nothing that makes or breaks the system. Now that I'm on a machine that runs Leopard, and I don't have the option, and I don't miss it.
I just hope that 10.7 doesn't take us cold turkey away from PPC, a bit faster than we would like.
TEG
I was given a PowerBook G4 500 when I graduated from High School, when we went to pick it up, the salesmen were surprised that it came with OS X, and doubled RAM at no extra cost. I didn't install OS X the first time until July, shortly after I arrived at college. I enjoyed many aspects of the system, except for the inability to run games like Sim City 3000 in Classic Mode, and issues related to attaching TVs via the SVideo connector, not to mention the lack of a DVD player. Between July and the release of 10.1 in September/October, I'd actually had to have my system sent back to Apple 3 times due to screen/Video Card issues. Each time, when they reformatted the hard drive and installed OS X they did it a different time. The first time both OS X and OS9 were on the same partition, in the second, they were separate, and the third, they were separate, and there was another partition for data. After the third time, I reformatted again, and followed the recommended procedure to install OS X and OS 9, including installing OS X first, then installing OS 9 as a New OS. After 10.1 came out, I began booting into OS 9 less and less, until after 10.5 came out, and I was stuck on Tiger, I actually loaded OS 9 onto my iPod and would boot of of it when I needed. Now, there are only two or three things I could think of still wanting OS 9 for, like SC2K or Myst, but nothing that makes or breaks the system. Now that I'm on a machine that runs Leopard, and I don't have the option, and I don't miss it.
I just hope that 10.7 doesn't take us cold turkey away from PPC, a bit faster than we would like.
TEG
Winni
Mar 29, 07:20 AM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
arn
Oct 10, 06:43 PM
moved to page 1, not because I necessarily think it was accurate, but because it's gotten wide exposure already and also that while Engadget generally has very low-standards for publishing rumors, this time they are claiming it's reliable...
we'll see...
arn
we'll see...
arn
ezekielrage_99
Oct 11, 02:14 AM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
I am leaning towards a new iPod product before the end of the year for two reasons:
1) Zune is being release, Apple needs to steal the limelight here.
2) The last iPod update was a huge deal for the Nano and a non-event for the 5G iPod.
I am leaning towards a new iPod product before the end of the year for two reasons:
1) Zune is being release, Apple needs to steal the limelight here.
2) The last iPod update was a huge deal for the Nano and a non-event for the 5G iPod.
G4DP
Jan 15, 03:40 PM
�200 for a 500GB External drive - haha, good one Steve!
white pilgrim
Nov 24, 11:07 AM
Let the sale go global! :p
I thought the Airport Express looks more excusable to own now. :D
I thought the Airport Express looks more excusable to own now. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment