deannnnn
Mar 29, 11:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
lol. good one.
lol. good one.
BillyBobBongo
Apr 20, 09:54 AM
Wonder how long this item will remain here...the one on Engadget managed about 7 minutes. ;)
cube
Mar 30, 01:41 PM
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".
That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".
FFTT
Sep 10, 05:28 AM
What ever Apple decides to do, the result will have to be better than any Vista
Powered AMD set-up.
The thing is that Apple has not only set a standard for performance, but also
for QUIET that no other workstation in it's class has ever achieved.
They won't be able to maintain that ground if they cut too many corners.
Some of these quad core designs will be a success and some with probably fail
to meet Apple's standards.
Powered AMD set-up.
The thing is that Apple has not only set a standard for performance, but also
for QUIET that no other workstation in it's class has ever achieved.
They won't be able to maintain that ground if they cut too many corners.
Some of these quad core designs will be a success and some with probably fail
to meet Apple's standards.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 01:30 PM
That's because the second pass only uses one core.No. it's still using more than one core. More likely because of the speed limitation of the hard drive writing the mp4 file.
Trench
Aug 23, 06:24 PM
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
aafuss1
Sep 4, 07:09 PM
Disney and Viacom movies could be the first movies offered.
cube
Mar 30, 01:41 PM
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".
That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".
NickFalk
Apr 29, 08:28 AM
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center.
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
VanNess
Sep 1, 04:02 AM
Well, if any of this is true, I'm going to take a pass on this one.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
iGary
Sep 13, 06:36 AM
I ordered a black 80GB Ipod last night, after approval from the wife.
I had a bad feeling about it, and promtly cancelled this morning.
My current Ipod is a 60GB Photo, and I have been looking to upgrade to video for some time, but I can't shake the feeling that this update was very minor, with a price reduction thrown into the equation.
I reckon, macworld in January there will be the iTV (or whatever it's called), and a new 6G widescreen iPod, with a few more movie companies thrown in.
So I think I'll ride it out until then.
I was ready to buy the next great iPod thing yesterday. My credit card went promptly back into my wallet and will remin there until we have a "real" iPod update.
Kind of disappointed this is what Apple sees fit to go into the holiday season with. Guess the rumours about the new iPod large screen being way behind were true.
I can't help but think they wanted to launch iTV with the movies as well - otherwise we would have never seen it.
*disappointed*
I will be buying a shuffle when someone builds a sports case for it, though.
I had a bad feeling about it, and promtly cancelled this morning.
My current Ipod is a 60GB Photo, and I have been looking to upgrade to video for some time, but I can't shake the feeling that this update was very minor, with a price reduction thrown into the equation.
I reckon, macworld in January there will be the iTV (or whatever it's called), and a new 6G widescreen iPod, with a few more movie companies thrown in.
So I think I'll ride it out until then.
I was ready to buy the next great iPod thing yesterday. My credit card went promptly back into my wallet and will remin there until we have a "real" iPod update.
Kind of disappointed this is what Apple sees fit to go into the holiday season with. Guess the rumours about the new iPod large screen being way behind were true.
I can't help but think they wanted to launch iTV with the movies as well - otherwise we would have never seen it.
*disappointed*
I will be buying a shuffle when someone builds a sports case for it, though.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:30 AM
There are people trying to paint this as though any tablet or mobile phone is similar to the rest so Apple has no case. Not true. Apple is suing one company for a copy so close that it is hard to see the difference.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
LOL - right. And that pinch and zoom feature on the palm was tremendous.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
LOL - right. And that pinch and zoom feature on the palm was tremendous.
dongmin
Sep 4, 07:56 PM
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...Apple seems to agree with you. They want you to buy lifestyle products that complement your Mac and the iLife apps, as opposed to a sepearte 'Media Center' type hardware.
For me personally, I fantasize about an inexpensive media server that connects to your TV and stereo components and also streams movies, music, photos, etc. to individual computers in your household. It'd basically be a Tivo on steroids. I think this device too can complement the rest of the Mac-iLife world quite nicely.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...Apple seems to agree with you. They want you to buy lifestyle products that complement your Mac and the iLife apps, as opposed to a sepearte 'Media Center' type hardware.
For me personally, I fantasize about an inexpensive media server that connects to your TV and stereo components and also streams movies, music, photos, etc. to individual computers in your household. It'd basically be a Tivo on steroids. I think this device too can complement the rest of the Mac-iLife world quite nicely.
viperguy
Sep 1, 08:56 AM
aaaaa gimme my core2duo macbook :)
I'm not buying the ordinary coreduo because I heard that it has a lot of bugs that intel will only fix on the new processor.
And I can wait, so if it doesn't come this month, I don't care waiting another one, who knows even a year :)
I'm not buying the ordinary coreduo because I heard that it has a lot of bugs that intel will only fix on the new processor.
And I can wait, so if it doesn't come this month, I don't care waiting another one, who knows even a year :)
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
kerryb
Apr 22, 07:50 AM
the music labels are a greedy bunch and I can only see them agreeing to a cloud service if it gives them back a lot of the control they lost when music went digital. will 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. This model even though the details have not been unveiled reminds me of Adobe's master plan to rent Photoshop on a per month basis. It is a way to keep the "pirates at bay" and control pricing and their customers. This could be a big step backwards for consumers who will most likely be blinded by the 24/7 convenience of the service without stopping to think what they might be loosing.
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:03 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Vaco Deus
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Let the apps stay.
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
IntelliUser
Apr 11, 12:19 AM
Which is why the US
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
DaveK
Sep 13, 09:38 PM
There are a lot of sound business reasons for Apple to release an iPhone. But the biggest reason is that Steve must have a cell phone and you know he probably hates the industrial design and functionality.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
LimeiBook86
Sep 12, 04:29 PM
So I assume in order to play these new games and such you need to update your 5G iPod's software to version 1.2? Has anyone been able to update theirs without a total "Restore?", if so I'd be interested but, erasing my iPod at this moment isn't really something I want to do haha. I mean if you click on the 'Games' tab in the iPod summary it will tell you that you need to click 'Update' to update your iPod, so hopefully there will be a way to do this without erasing everything and starting over. ;)
I also wonder if you buy one game if you can share that game to multiple iPods (for example if you had two 5G iPods...or if your brother does ;)) :D The iTunes update is also nice, I was quite fond of the green icon but, I'll get used to the new one. BTW, Front Row has also been updated to version 1.3 to be compatible with iTunes 7 :)
I also wonder if you buy one game if you can share that game to multiple iPods (for example if you had two 5G iPods...or if your brother does ;)) :D The iTunes update is also nice, I was quite fond of the green icon but, I'll get used to the new one. BTW, Front Row has also been updated to version 1.3 to be compatible with iTunes 7 :)
MacRumors
Apr 28, 03:17 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-beats-microsoft-in-first-quarter-profit/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/154057-microsoft_logo.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/154057-microsoft_logo.jpg