solidus12
Dec 30, 07:18 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Yeah I mean what with the iphones Bluetooth transfers, tethering, awesome camara, Flash support, excellent reception, fantastic battery life etc..
Yeah way ahead.
No.
The iphone is successful because of the user-experience; Its one a child can pick up and use, it is slick and fluent experience and its packaged in something attractive.
People see it and are drawn to it because of this, the other phones require time and effort to navigate between menus and options to figure out how to use it - The iphone is simple. Pick up and play.
It has pushed the boundaries on user-experience and how a phone should try and work Yes and that has been a very attractive feature because it does everything all other phones can do but presents it far better.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Yeah I mean what with the iphones Bluetooth transfers, tethering, awesome camara, Flash support, excellent reception, fantastic battery life etc..
Yeah way ahead.
No.
The iphone is successful because of the user-experience; Its one a child can pick up and use, it is slick and fluent experience and its packaged in something attractive.
People see it and are drawn to it because of this, the other phones require time and effort to navigate between menus and options to figure out how to use it - The iphone is simple. Pick up and play.
It has pushed the boundaries on user-experience and how a phone should try and work Yes and that has been a very attractive feature because it does everything all other phones can do but presents it far better.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
arn
Oct 25, 10:32 PM
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
JnericMBP
Sep 1, 12:43 AM
Another fallout from terrible AT&T service is that in many shops and restaurants, at least in the San Francisco area, and especially Berkeley, you can't check in using location services like Foursquare or Facebook Places since there isn't adequate coverage- eg: no service, no signal etc.
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:50 PM
The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps.
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:58 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
.jpg "Beautiful Quotes wallpapers")
Yvan256
Sep 20, 01:00 PM
I doubt that. The decoding will take place in iTV. How are you going to install codecs on it? If it does not support it out of the box, it probably will not be possible.
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:07 AM
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
jazzkids
May 6, 08:56 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:17 PM
I loved the iPhone, but the AT&T service is crap! It drops calls with 5 Bars and 3G, so the Towers are not the issue. If Steve Jobs would wake F&*$ up and get with Verizon then AT&T would go out of Business. I am now with Verizon which is where I came from to get the iPhone and I have not dropped a call yet?
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
mdelvecchio
Apr 21, 02:37 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
youre citing "security by obscurity", and its been debunked. OS X has much more marketshare than 9 did, yet has no viruses where 9 did have viruses.
UNIX is inherently more secure than windows. its how the OSes are designed that makes windows more vulnerable.
facts.
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
hanpa
Oct 7, 03:48 PM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
hanpa
Oct 7, 03:48 PM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
Beric
Mar 12, 03:19 AM
Japan quake: 'Explosion heard' at nuclear power plant
http://tvde.web.infoseek.co.jp/cgi-bin/jlab-dat/k/s/dat1299916395109.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/milli_vanilli1/fallout.jpg
OMG.
Yes.=, that map is a worst-case scenario.
Video of explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4uogOEUrU&feature=player_embedded
http://tvde.web.infoseek.co.jp/cgi-bin/jlab-dat/k/s/dat1299916395109.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/milli_vanilli1/fallout.jpg
OMG.
Yes.=, that map is a worst-case scenario.
Video of explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4uogOEUrU&feature=player_embedded
sinsin07
Apr 9, 07:43 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
iphones4evry1
Oct 8, 12:15 AM
If the day comes when an Android phone is as good as an iPhone, then it will be the service provider that will be the tipping point. AT&T better get their act together!
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 12:21 AM
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
idea time only. Wind produces the most power during the night (not during peak load times) and again I would not want the noise from the wind turbines all over hte place.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
idea time only. Wind produces the most power during the night (not during peak load times) and again I would not want the noise from the wind turbines all over hte place.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:27 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment