dvdhsu
Nov 17, 06:27 PM
Boom:
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
Because the iPhone doesn't have a copyright.
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
Because the iPhone doesn't have a copyright.
aafuss1
Sep 14, 12:21 PM
A Digital Image Suite esque bundle of a pro iPhoto and Aperture.
MattyMac
Sep 9, 10:17 AM
I want to see some unpacking pics of that 24inch model compared with the 20in. Soon enough I suppose.
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 07:39 AM
I see, another "we'll start in US and maybe in the future do something for the rest of the world, too" product.
Well, good luck finding an exclusive deal in Belgium, you can't "lock" cell phones here, we believe in choice. Hopefully it will be GSM (100 % coverage)
Well, good luck finding an exclusive deal in Belgium, you can't "lock" cell phones here, we believe in choice. Hopefully it will be GSM (100 % coverage)
bbeagle
Apr 22, 09:35 AM
it not be too long until all music is purchased in digital format and only accessible via a cloud service. this means thats actually having a copy of a song (to share) will be a thing of the past. You pay your $9.99 for an album and happily listen to it for a couple of years, then the labels decided that album is more valuable than the original price and ask you for another $2 if you wish to access it again from the cloud.
I actually expect it to be worse than that.
Imagine if you 'buy' a cloud-only song for 99 cents, The fine-print will say that this 'rental' is only good for 90 days or 1 year. You'll then have to 'buy it again' to keep listening to the song. Or there might be a limit of 100 times to listen to the song. And in 10 years, we'll think of this as the 'norm'.
There are so many ingenious ways to make money when you don't own the actual physical media, and I'm sure the record labels are devising these schemes as we speak.
I actually expect it to be worse than that.
Imagine if you 'buy' a cloud-only song for 99 cents, The fine-print will say that this 'rental' is only good for 90 days or 1 year. You'll then have to 'buy it again' to keep listening to the song. Or there might be a limit of 100 times to listen to the song. And in 10 years, we'll think of this as the 'norm'.
There are so many ingenious ways to make money when you don't own the actual physical media, and I'm sure the record labels are devising these schemes as we speak.
chuckles:)
Oct 12, 10:27 PM
i think it looks cool.
gugy
Aug 31, 12:55 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
Bubbasteve
Sep 26, 08:26 AM
I wonder when it will be released? I really hope Apple sells them in there stores and I don't have to go through cingular and get it...but whatever I must do what I must do
0815
Apr 20, 01:58 PM
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
freeny
Sep 5, 12:48 PM
Gonna need a few more shares to make any money, but good effort. ;)
If the stock goes up $10 he'll have himself a free ipod. not all that bad.
If the stock goes up $10 he'll have himself a free ipod. not all that bad.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:00 AM
Sure, your entire post just screams at what a safe driver you are. :rolleyes:I bet if your parents saw a post like this they would take away your car. You are a menace.
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
Evangelion
Aug 23, 11:45 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.
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Stridder44
Mar 23, 07:04 PM
Censorship! Don't do it, Apple!
Gotta say, usually I'd be right there with you on this, but in this case I'm on the senators side. Drunk driving is f--ked up, and the people who do it deserve to rot in a cell. I'm a-okay with them finding those kinds of people. Again though, under most other circumstances I would be completely against caving into the senators' requests.
Gotta say, usually I'd be right there with you on this, but in this case I'm on the senators side. Drunk driving is f--ked up, and the people who do it deserve to rot in a cell. I'm a-okay with them finding those kinds of people. Again though, under most other circumstances I would be completely against caving into the senators' requests.
puma1552
Apr 22, 08:33 AM
ever heard of the pandora app??
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
URFloorMatt
Mar 30, 01:17 PM
After a bit of thought I think I'm siding with Apple... here's why:
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it or not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...Disagree because "Ope System" is not the accepted abbreviation: "OS" is. Do you think Microsoft should be able to rename Windows OS and then trademark OS? Of course not, and accordingly Apple shouldn't get a trademark on App Store.
Apple should lose this dispute on the merits. Whether they do or not will depend on the caliber of their lawyers. On the two briefs we've seen so far, Apple clearly has some advantage, so they might pull this out nonetheless.
The strongest argument I've read against the trademark is that 'App Store' is describing the very thing it actually is. Someone likened this to renaming 'Windows' to 'Operating System'.
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it or not but thats not the point. Basically it would be like renaming 'Windows' to 'Ope System'.
I'd argue that 'Ope System' could be trademarked whereas 'Operating System' couldn't...Disagree because "Ope System" is not the accepted abbreviation: "OS" is. Do you think Microsoft should be able to rename Windows OS and then trademark OS? Of course not, and accordingly Apple shouldn't get a trademark on App Store.
Apple should lose this dispute on the merits. Whether they do or not will depend on the caliber of their lawyers. On the two briefs we've seen so far, Apple clearly has some advantage, so they might pull this out nonetheless.
dizastor
Sep 5, 10:11 AM
Who else thinks Lion's Gate will not be on the list... at least for now?
LethalWolfe
Oct 27, 04:16 PM
I really don't understand why some people are seeing GP as the victim here. GP went there w/an agenda, a plan, and probably a goal of getting kicked out (and then turning it into a news story). It's like sit ins or hand cuffing yourself to a fence. Do you actually think either of those actions will cause change? No, but when you get arrested and make the evening news that's where your potential for change is.
If your game plan is to break the rules in hopes of reaching a larger audience I'm not gonna feel bad when you face the penalties for your actions.
Lethal
If your game plan is to break the rules in hopes of reaching a larger audience I'm not gonna feel bad when you face the penalties for your actions.
Lethal
ChickenSwartz
Sep 2, 04:49 PM
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
So I have read a lot of these posts, but not all, sorry if this has been dicussed.
Is it weird to have a special event in SF on the day the Paris Expo starts?
Do you think this is pointing towards an iPod/iTunes announcement (movie rentals or whatever)?
If there is no keynote in Paris and a special event on the 12th that has something to do with iPod/Tunes, does this give further evidence that C2C will be in on the 5th?
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
So I have read a lot of these posts, but not all, sorry if this has been dicussed.
Is it weird to have a special event in SF on the day the Paris Expo starts?
Do you think this is pointing towards an iPod/iTunes announcement (movie rentals or whatever)?
If there is no keynote in Paris and a special event on the 12th that has something to do with iPod/Tunes, does this give further evidence that C2C will be in on the 5th?
Eidorian
May 3, 12:27 PM
If the monitors cannot daisy chain, you need a hub for the port(s) to which you connect multiple such displays.Thanks, I was just curious.
EagerDragon
Sep 16, 04:47 PM
Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:
Microsoft is an expert at that. All their software phones home, so why not got the distance? LOL:eek:
Microsoft is an expert at that. All their software phones home, so why not got the distance? LOL:eek:
w00master
Nov 13, 02:42 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
Again... you clearly did not read the developer's side.
Btw, those "copyrighted images?" Programmers use them all the time on OS X. Why? Because THEY'RE FROM OS X APIs.
w00master
Again... you clearly did not read the developer's side.
Btw, those "copyrighted images?" Programmers use them all the time on OS X. Why? Because THEY'RE FROM OS X APIs.
w00master
macnulty
Aug 24, 07:51 PM
Huge win for Apple, hands down.
$100m is not chump change but for a company with Apple's size it comes close.
On top of that Apple gets to recoup at least some of that if Creative decides to license the technology in question.
On top of that Creative is entering the "made for iPod" market, which only adds to the iPod allure.
On top of that iPod interface doesn't change.
$100m is not chump change but for a company with Apple's size it comes close.
On top of that Apple gets to recoup at least some of that if Creative decides to license the technology in question.
On top of that Creative is entering the "made for iPod" market, which only adds to the iPod allure.
On top of that iPod interface doesn't change.
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 03:36 PM
*fingers still crossed for a software update for current 5G iPod owners to bring 'em up to speed with all the new features* :rolleyes:
Philberttheduck
Sep 12, 06:07 PM
I'm very happy about the gapless playback, and battery life, but generally all these updates are pretty disappointing.
Pretty much sums up my mood hours afterwards. At the time, I was flaming pissed/disappointed. I'm pretty much utterly disappointed by this event.
But this iPod was almost "expected," from a business standpoint. Full screen iPod and iPhone; anything short of a 60/120GB iPod lineup and I'll see it as a huge letdown.
Steve's pre-Holiday event's bar is set at infinity +1.
I blame the no-show turtleneck sweater. :D
Pretty much sums up my mood hours afterwards. At the time, I was flaming pissed/disappointed. I'm pretty much utterly disappointed by this event.
But this iPod was almost "expected," from a business standpoint. Full screen iPod and iPhone; anything short of a 60/120GB iPod lineup and I'll see it as a huge letdown.
Steve's pre-Holiday event's bar is set at infinity +1.
I blame the no-show turtleneck sweater. :D
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder