mkjellman
Aug 29, 08:22 AM
nice apple, common i really need a new computer, i feel like the original powerbook g4 al waiting game all over again!
langis.elbasunu
Mar 23, 06:25 PM
in the us you are a criminal by default
rtdunham
Mar 23, 05:58 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
Seems to me if it's NOT censorship to prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, it shouldn't be censorship to ban yelling "DUI stop" on the crowded highways we stage our lives on daily (see what I did there?). ;)
I say pull the apps.
Doesn't matter what party a senator is from , they are all liars and cheats.
Gosh, maybe we should ban stereotyping, too. :)
Seems to me if it's NOT censorship to prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, it shouldn't be censorship to ban yelling "DUI stop" on the crowded highways we stage our lives on daily (see what I did there?). ;)
I say pull the apps.
Doesn't matter what party a senator is from , they are all liars and cheats.
Gosh, maybe we should ban stereotyping, too. :)
ECUpirate44
Mar 29, 11:25 AM
Microsoft should work on perfecting windows before starting a mobile OS
tylersdad
Apr 4, 12:04 PM
OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.
Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Warbrain
Sep 26, 08:50 AM
Yeah, but not if it's locked. I had to call up my provider and beg for my unlock code so that I could use *my* phone in Asia, and then they said yes, and never sent it to me. Call them back, and...well..rinse, repeat.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
But then they need to build two different phones based on two different sets of components and it would end up being too expensive in the end. Yes, the provider of the service will give you the unlock code for when you want to travel, but Apple and any other company that makes a cell phone will never be able to sell unlocked phones in this country and allow you to choose which provider you want. Nokia is trying it now at their two stores in Chicago and New York, but I can tell you that it's not going to work.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
But then they need to build two different phones based on two different sets of components and it would end up being too expensive in the end. Yes, the provider of the service will give you the unlock code for when you want to travel, but Apple and any other company that makes a cell phone will never be able to sell unlocked phones in this country and allow you to choose which provider you want. Nokia is trying it now at their two stores in Chicago and New York, but I can tell you that it's not going to work.
Piggie
Apr 22, 08:51 AM
How about this:
When you are born, you are given, in effect a serial number. which is yours as a human being for life.
When you buy any digital media, this is linked to our number for life.
This means for as long as you live, and whatever device you buy, you can access this media always.
So I buy and iPad and I pay for the "RIGHTS" to watch/own a movie.
I have paid my money and now that movie is mine to watch any time in the future on whatever device I buy in the future.
When you are born, you are given, in effect a serial number. which is yours as a human being for life.
When you buy any digital media, this is linked to our number for life.
This means for as long as you live, and whatever device you buy, you can access this media always.
So I buy and iPad and I pay for the "RIGHTS" to watch/own a movie.
I have paid my money and now that movie is mine to watch any time in the future on whatever device I buy in the future.
glowingstar
Oct 12, 05:26 PM
yep...it's right there on the front page of www.chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com)
none of these ipods on ebay yet, though. ;)
none of these ipods on ebay yet, though. ;)
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 19, 03:38 PM
I hope you're getting paid well to post this crap.
Is there some reason you feel the need lash out at people?
Still, don't you feel dirty having to post references to obsolete "malware" like Leap-A and Inqtana-A that were never successful even before the OS was patched years ago??
You seem to be utterly oblivious to the whole point of the message which is that OSX is not invulnerable by any means, which seems to be the fanboy mantra of the week.
As for USB3 vs Lightpeak, your pitiful response makes me think you were one of the pinheads criticizing Apple for dropping floppy drives at the turn of the century.
Again, the childish lashing out of insults.... :rolleyes: You do realize they don't make your opinions look any better don't you?
The idea of dropping a drive that takes up space is one thing, but to include USB2 ports while purposely leaving out USB3 ports (which take up the same amount of space and are 100% backwards compatible) is asinine. The fact you would feel the need to call people "pinheads" who think in a logical manner rather than blindly worship Steve and everything Apple does tells me all I need to know about you, really.
Short Hairstyles 2011 for
Short hairstyles 2011 can be
Short hairstyles
New short sexy women
short hair styles 2011 for
celebrity short hair styles
Women Short Hairstyles 2011,
short hair styles 2011 for
short hair styles for thick
Very Short Hair Styles 2011
Is there some reason you feel the need lash out at people?
Still, don't you feel dirty having to post references to obsolete "malware" like Leap-A and Inqtana-A that were never successful even before the OS was patched years ago??
You seem to be utterly oblivious to the whole point of the message which is that OSX is not invulnerable by any means, which seems to be the fanboy mantra of the week.
As for USB3 vs Lightpeak, your pitiful response makes me think you were one of the pinheads criticizing Apple for dropping floppy drives at the turn of the century.
Again, the childish lashing out of insults.... :rolleyes: You do realize they don't make your opinions look any better don't you?
The idea of dropping a drive that takes up space is one thing, but to include USB2 ports while purposely leaving out USB3 ports (which take up the same amount of space and are 100% backwards compatible) is asinine. The fact you would feel the need to call people "pinheads" who think in a logical manner rather than blindly worship Steve and everything Apple does tells me all I need to know about you, really.
dkaff
Apr 4, 12:41 PM
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
It mentions in the article that there was an exchange of gunfire, so apparently the bad guys had guns. Chalk one up for the good guys....
aswitcher
Sep 6, 03:51 PM
Ship times on the Airport Extreme have been pushed back 1-3 weeks. Anyone else notice?
No. iSights are also quit delayed.
No. iSights are also quit delayed.
e28
Aug 24, 10:41 AM
$100m = 4 days worth of iPod sales on average or 16 days of iPod profits.
scrapple
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
yawn..
they both made billions... who cares.
they both made billions... who cares.
BornAgainMac
Mar 22, 01:30 PM
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
Soliber
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Must have been a very decently trained security guard, kudos...
What baffles me more is that there are so many people who actually take sides with the criminals here. Granted, robbing an Apple Store is not the most heinous of crimes, but seriously, this is what can happen when you decide to break the law.
I wonder if certain people assume that we should all just go train with Morpheus and Neo, so the poor armed criminals could be disarmed with the least possible physical damage to their bodies. :rolleyes:
There is such a thing as being to much of a pacifist -_-
What baffles me more is that there are so many people who actually take sides with the criminals here. Granted, robbing an Apple Store is not the most heinous of crimes, but seriously, this is what can happen when you decide to break the law.
I wonder if certain people assume that we should all just go train with Morpheus and Neo, so the poor armed criminals could be disarmed with the least possible physical damage to their bodies. :rolleyes:
There is such a thing as being to much of a pacifist -_-
FreeState
Sep 19, 02:36 PM
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
It already works that way:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
Shop the iTunes Store for hot new releases such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, and download them for $12.99 the week they�re released on DVD. Or buy Disney library titles for $9.99 to $14.99. All your favorites are here: The Princess Diaries, The Incredibles, Cinderella, Toy Story, The Rock, The Rookie, and more. Search for movies just as you would for music, and watch a free trailer before you download. Or, if you can�t wait for the next blockbuster to hit shelves, feel free to pre-order upcoming releases. iTunes will let you know the minute they�re ready to download. Can�t wait to start the show? You can even watch your movie as it downloads.
It already works that way:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
Shop the iTunes Store for hot new releases such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, and download them for $12.99 the week they�re released on DVD. Or buy Disney library titles for $9.99 to $14.99. All your favorites are here: The Princess Diaries, The Incredibles, Cinderella, Toy Story, The Rock, The Rookie, and more. Search for movies just as you would for music, and watch a free trailer before you download. Or, if you can�t wait for the next blockbuster to hit shelves, feel free to pre-order upcoming releases. iTunes will let you know the minute they�re ready to download. Can�t wait to start the show? You can even watch your movie as it downloads.
hulugu
Apr 20, 04:54 PM
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
What programs do you consider to be 'forced charity?'
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
What programs do you consider to be 'forced charity?'
tigress666
Mar 30, 12:28 PM
I think the fact that Microsoft is spending so much money to fight the trademark so they can use it rather than just coming up with their own name (after all that would be much cheaper) says they don't think it's generic.
If it was generic, the name wouldn't have so much marketing power that Microsoft is willing to spend this much money so they can use it too... Microsoft obviously feels that the marketing power of being able to use that name will draw enough users in to make up for the money they are paying to fight Apple claiming no one else can use it. Otherwise, they'd feel it was not worth all that money to spend rather than just getting one of their employees to come up with a name or even a simple contest amongst employees (or even the public) with a reward (That most likely would be cheaper than the lawyers) for who picks the winning name.
The fact that MS is willing to spend all this money alone says that the name is not generic.
If it was generic, the name wouldn't have so much marketing power that Microsoft is willing to spend this much money so they can use it too... Microsoft obviously feels that the marketing power of being able to use that name will draw enough users in to make up for the money they are paying to fight Apple claiming no one else can use it. Otherwise, they'd feel it was not worth all that money to spend rather than just getting one of their employees to come up with a name or even a simple contest amongst employees (or even the public) with a reward (That most likely would be cheaper than the lawyers) for who picks the winning name.
The fact that MS is willing to spend all this money alone says that the name is not generic.
Caitlyn
Aug 31, 11:56 AM
New Apple Cinema Displays with glossy screens and iSights would be amazing. :)
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
milo
Jul 17, 11:54 AM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
ctdonath
Mar 23, 08:07 AM
What ThunderPort devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
MonkeyClaw
Sep 26, 10:39 AM
Cingular has terrible coverage here in Asheville, especially on campus from my experience. With verizon though, I can be anywhere and have guarunteed at least 3 bars. Cingluar works sometimes on campus but for the most part its a bit sketchy. Haven't tried it in the city though.
briloronmacrumo
Mar 22, 11:52 PM
GeekBench 2 benchmarks http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/ of the new MBPs with Sandy Bridge would indicate otherwise. This review said: "....the fastest MacBook Pro is 80% faster than the fastest previous-generation MacBook Pro.". My guess is a similar situation might be true for the iMac and it will be faster ( otherwise, there's little point to a rev )
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.