bretm
Jul 20, 10:11 AM
iPod sales GROWTH is slowing, but iPod sales are still speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
Increasing. Not speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
Increasing. Not speeding up.
firestarter
Mar 20, 06:03 PM
And like I said, they dont have to be worried because homeopathy is not directly harmful to people. Ex-gay therapy is. This is not just an app based on christianity. Exodus International is an organization dedicated specifically to ex-gay therapy.
Maybe Apple should ban all religious apps.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
Maybe Apple should ban all religious apps.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
aiqw9182
Mar 25, 08:53 PM
You fail to understand the difference between "API" and "API-class" hardware.
I lol'd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I lol'd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
emotion
Aug 16, 07:43 AM
I wish whoever posted this would get it straight - Microsoft is coming out with zune to compete with iPod. They are the one with the new product that will inevitably suck.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
At least Apple seem to be avoiding standing still. That's a good thing as it's hard to stay at the top of the market forever. Especially when MS are concerned.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
At least Apple seem to be avoiding standing still. That's a good thing as it's hard to stay at the top of the market forever. Especially when MS are concerned.
gwangung
Apr 21, 11:49 AM
Once again, people are going off half cocked, without knowing anything about either the law or the technical details (and, sorry, but the details MATTER).
corywoolf
Sep 6, 03:26 PM
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Mousse
Feb 23, 11:43 AM
So when will automakers sell a compact pickup with a 2 liter diesel in the US? I want a diesel pick up. But I don't want a behemoth that requires a ladder to enter and hogs 2/3 of a 2 car garage.:p
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
andi242
Sep 19, 03:30 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silicone-Case-Cover-Skin-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4th-Gen-/360297195747?pt=PDA_Accessories&hash=item53e362e8e3
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
bokeh from hell...
cant quite figure out how the edges fit around connector area...
could have been a little more �...
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
bokeh from hell...
cant quite figure out how the edges fit around connector area...
could have been a little more �...
gnasher729
Feb 26, 12:18 PM
Hold it right there! The Kia models sold in Europe actually nowadays borrow from the current Hyundai Motor Company parts bin, and as such are way more civilized cars. Anyone who's driven the Kia Cee'd hatchback in Europe know it's a way better car than people think.
Mostly because they are actually made in Europe. And Kia pinched the guy who designed the Audi TT to design the Kia Ceed. But I really wouldn't know who is borrowing from whom.
Mostly because they are actually made in Europe. And Kia pinched the guy who designed the Audi TT to design the Kia Ceed. But I really wouldn't know who is borrowing from whom.
LarryC
Mar 24, 05:22 PM
Mac Pro's have big power supplies but thats mainly for the CPU and Ram, adding a 6970 would be pushing its limits, especially for gaming.
Couldn't they simply upgrade that as well? I can't imagine why they couldn't. I mean we are talking future Mac Pros.
Couldn't they simply upgrade that as well? I can't imagine why they couldn't. I mean we are talking future Mac Pros.
KonaBlend
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
viggin
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
iEric
Nov 27, 01:31 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:
popelife
Jan 3, 10:48 AM
Anyway do you guys think a ultra portable Apple laptop is in the works?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I would have thought this was a certainty, but I think it's unlikely to be ready for MacWorld. Perhaps when a MBP redesign comes along (In conjunction with Santa Rosa?)
New mobile processors from Intel arrive this month that make it all possible.
If by some miracle there is a smaller laptop at MW, I think it'll be a 12" MacBook, rather than a MBP.
A small MBP depends on finding a suitable low-power GPU, because otherwise there's not much to differentiate MB and MBP.
See subnotebook discussion on the portables forum.
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I would have thought this was a certainty, but I think it's unlikely to be ready for MacWorld. Perhaps when a MBP redesign comes along (In conjunction with Santa Rosa?)
New mobile processors from Intel arrive this month that make it all possible.
If by some miracle there is a smaller laptop at MW, I think it'll be a 12" MacBook, rather than a MBP.
A small MBP depends on finding a suitable low-power GPU, because otherwise there's not much to differentiate MB and MBP.
See subnotebook discussion on the portables forum.
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:53 PM
Eh. People bitched about Aperture getting these features too, but so far Aperture's never grabbed me by the neck and forced me to use them. I assume Final Cut will be the same.
Face Detection worked great in iPhoto. In Aperture it is a PITA even if you want to use it. For instance, I haven't figured out how to say "this is just a cloud, there is no face there, really, don't ask me every time I start up the face detection feature."
Face Detection worked great in iPhoto. In Aperture it is a PITA even if you want to use it. For instance, I haven't figured out how to say "this is just a cloud, there is no face there, really, don't ask me every time I start up the face detection feature."
Benguitar
Nov 25, 11:18 PM
^^^^^Could I recommend a case for that?
:D
/facepalm
He's pretty tough on stuff, That's why I didn't get him a nano because it has a screen.
I wish I could find a pelican for a shuffle.. :p
Seriously though, Stop, I don't wanna get banned for spamming this thread.
:D
/facepalm
He's pretty tough on stuff, That's why I didn't get him a nano because it has a screen.
I wish I could find a pelican for a shuffle.. :p
Seriously though, Stop, I don't wanna get banned for spamming this thread.
DoFoT9
Mar 6, 01:25 AM
Is there an error code or something in the log?
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
this is the error i get. if you guys cant help at all ill make a new thread :)
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
this is the error i get. if you guys cant help at all ill make a new thread :)
berol
Sep 14, 12:10 PM
I haven't heard of anyone dying from a dropped phone call. The problem is user-correctible with a piece of tape or just remembering not to touch that part of the phone if you even have the problem. At some point, you have to use the accellerator on a Toyota.
CR takes a few of every product and gives it a 'recommended' tag. They decided not to give it to the iphone 4. Almost every phone they review doesn't get the tag so it means something, but the iphone got the press over it.
CR takes a few of every product and gives it a 'recommended' tag. They decided not to give it to the iphone 4. Almost every phone they review doesn't get the tag so it means something, but the iphone got the press over it.
AndrewR23
Apr 10, 02:33 PM
My first car was a shift so yup I had to learn. My girlfriend is being taught by me right now too :)
aristotle
Apr 2, 11:41 PM
Great concept, I love it. But it was poorly executed. Who picked the music for this ad? It's terrible. And the voiceover is on the verge of creepy.
I miss old Apple ads. Their advertising is going downhill while their products keep getting better.
Dude, the people who think everything is "creepy" are usually creepy themselves. I'm not trying to antagonize you but it is just an observation of mine that I've seen so often. It is all about self esteem and redirection on someone or something else. People who are happy with themselves don't go out of their way to put people or things down. I'm just a little sick and tired of the fad to overuse words like "creepy" so that they begin to lose all meaning. It does not make so seem "cool" in my eyes.
I've seen teens who were awkward and odd looking who used "creepy" a lot whereas those with self confidence just lived their lives instead of trying to label strangers walking by minding their own business.
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
Back on topic, I loved the part with the plucked strings. With the angle they used and the responsiveness it seemed as if it was 3 dimensional.
I miss old Apple ads. Their advertising is going downhill while their products keep getting better.
Dude, the people who think everything is "creepy" are usually creepy themselves. I'm not trying to antagonize you but it is just an observation of mine that I've seen so often. It is all about self esteem and redirection on someone or something else. People who are happy with themselves don't go out of their way to put people or things down. I'm just a little sick and tired of the fad to overuse words like "creepy" so that they begin to lose all meaning. It does not make so seem "cool" in my eyes.
I've seen teens who were awkward and odd looking who used "creepy" a lot whereas those with self confidence just lived their lives instead of trying to label strangers walking by minding their own business.
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
Back on topic, I loved the part with the plucked strings. With the angle they used and the responsiveness it seemed as if it was 3 dimensional.
MacNut
Jan 1, 06:26 PM
Steve will take the stage and announce that they have created artificial life that can sing every song on your iPod while cleaning your house, he says they will be called PodPeople.:rolleyes:
jpine
Apr 20, 12:07 AM
The GPU alone in this revision will determine whether I'm buying an iMac or building a PC. If the GPU is even close to competitive in the gaming dept. for a little while, then I'm in.
+1 with the exception of waiting (yet longer) for a mac pro instead of a PC. I'm not a gamer but I would like a decent graphics card for 3D apps.
+1 with the exception of waiting (yet longer) for a mac pro instead of a PC. I'm not a gamer but I would like a decent graphics card for 3D apps.
Doraemon
Mar 18, 09:35 AM
I didn't sign either.
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).