scoobydoo99
Apr 20, 12:21 PM
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
I'm surprised that some of you don't understand what Steve is saying. So while I am stating the obvious, here goes:
Apple is a corporation. Corporations are required BY LAW to maximize profitability for their shareholders (fiduciary duty.) This is THE ONLY thing they "care" about.
Now, does providing products that customers like help them maximize profits? Of course. But don't ever confuse their efforts to please customers as being altruistic or showing that they "care" about customers. They only care about profit. If keeping customers happy increases profits, they do it. If giving away free bumpers for iPhone4s is good PR and creates customer goodwill, which increases future profits, then they do it. If selling private data to advertisers or government agencies creates more revenue than it costs (in lost customers,) then they do it.
It is all calculated on the bottom line and they are REQUIRED to take the action that maximizes profits, like ALL corporations.
I'm surprised that some of you don't understand what Steve is saying. So while I am stating the obvious, here goes:
Apple is a corporation. Corporations are required BY LAW to maximize profitability for their shareholders (fiduciary duty.) This is THE ONLY thing they "care" about.
Now, does providing products that customers like help them maximize profits? Of course. But don't ever confuse their efforts to please customers as being altruistic or showing that they "care" about customers. They only care about profit. If keeping customers happy increases profits, they do it. If giving away free bumpers for iPhone4s is good PR and creates customer goodwill, which increases future profits, then they do it. If selling private data to advertisers or government agencies creates more revenue than it costs (in lost customers,) then they do it.
It is all calculated on the bottom line and they are REQUIRED to take the action that maximizes profits, like ALL corporations.
PCMA
Sep 13, 09:12 PM
When Steve Jobs intoduced the 5G iPod in October last year he made it very clear that its release completed Apple's 2005 holiday season line-up. "What's our holiday line-up look... it's stonger than ever been. The line-up has never looked this good" he said.
After releasing updates to every iPod product line at Tuesday's Showtime event he left a very big opening for a major product announcement between now and the holidays. Steve said "I hope this gives you a feeling for what we've got lined up for this holiday season."
Steve Jobs chooses his words very carefully. If Apple's holiday line-up was now complete - he would have said so emphatically.
I don't think that any new announcements before Christmas will include a 6G video iPod - because this would really get up the nose of 5.5G iPod purchasers.
After releasing updates to every iPod product line at Tuesday's Showtime event he left a very big opening for a major product announcement between now and the holidays. Steve said "I hope this gives you a feeling for what we've got lined up for this holiday season."
Steve Jobs chooses his words very carefully. If Apple's holiday line-up was now complete - he would have said so emphatically.
I don't think that any new announcements before Christmas will include a 6G video iPod - because this would really get up the nose of 5.5G iPod purchasers.
drlunanerd
Sep 2, 04:55 PM
I think it's pointing to Apple not bothering with the Paris Expo anymore. Their disinterest started last year, and unfortunately I was there at the time, altough Mr Jobs did show up for a press conference and checked out the Sony stand, ha.
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
rstansby
Nov 13, 01:52 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 04:45 PM
Really, though $100 million isn't all that significant to a company with reserves like Apple has, vs. having a possible patent infringement hanging over them that could, given a ruling against them, cost much more.
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Squonk
Sep 12, 03:06 PM
My only problem is there doesn't seem to be an education discount right now on the new iPods. Just 249 and 349. :confused:
I'm guessing this will change once the current edu promotion is over...
I'm guessing this will change once the current edu promotion is over...
Eidorian
Sep 9, 12:23 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. The OS delegates to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason for going with more cores if you can afford it.Heh, that's pretty funny. I have quite a few applications that'll hit one core at 100%. (Q emulator is the best example) Luckily, even though it's not multi-threaded a have another core free to do my work while Q eats up 100% of one.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...
It's an old think I always do one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason for going with more cores if you can afford it.Heh, that's pretty funny. I have quite a few applications that'll hit one core at 100%. (Q emulator is the best example) Luckily, even though it's not multi-threaded a have another core free to do my work while Q eats up 100% of one.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
Stupidity on MacRumors and in the federal government, as usual.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
EagerDragon
Sep 14, 06:19 PM
Don't cry - a tablet would be the absolute worst interface for edit digital photos, so there's absolutely no chance that'll be happening at photokina.
Would it?
How is it different than using a Wacon Tablet?
Would seem like there would be a lot more control. But maybe I am wrong. Still would love to try it.
Would it?
How is it different than using a Wacon Tablet?
Would seem like there would be a lot more control. But maybe I am wrong. Still would love to try it.
munkery
Apr 17, 03:34 PM
Sorry, I didn't see your edit:
Perfect, thanks GGJStudios.
I did some research on this while waiting for a reply but I only have systems running SL so I couldn't verify the info.
I notice that the items in those folder only have system with write privilege but I believe the folders themselves also have admin with write privileges. This is not the case in Snow Leopard so SL seems to be a little more hardened by default. This only provides an incremental benefit in terms of security.
Many of those security sensitive folders in /Library just serve the same function as ~/Library but affect all users. Important items included in those folders by default, require system level privileges to modify so password authentication would be required to hijack those items. I also believe that items have to only be writeable by system if going to interact with system level processes due to unix DAC; I haven't confirmed this yet. Makes sense?
Perfect, thanks GGJStudios.
I did some research on this while waiting for a reply but I only have systems running SL so I couldn't verify the info.
I notice that the items in those folder only have system with write privilege but I believe the folders themselves also have admin with write privileges. This is not the case in Snow Leopard so SL seems to be a little more hardened by default. This only provides an incremental benefit in terms of security.
Many of those security sensitive folders in /Library just serve the same function as ~/Library but affect all users. Important items included in those folders by default, require system level privileges to modify so password authentication would be required to hijack those items. I also believe that items have to only be writeable by system if going to interact with system level processes due to unix DAC; I haven't confirmed this yet. Makes sense?
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:23 PM
Meh I want the black nano to match my macbook, not a red one. :\
maxmiles
Apr 4, 11:55 AM
Oh.. if there was an exchange of gunfire I'm glad the security officer survived. I thought this was a case of an over anxious gun user.
crabstick
Sep 12, 02:43 PM
Yep, i've already downloaded the update and it's all good. Just been playing Tetris.
Macnoviz
Sep 20, 07:29 AM
I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007. :rolleyes:
In Belgium they promised us TV shows for still no word if that will be the case.
It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs.
Not true, al least not here in Belgium, and probably not in the US, too.
All TV sets here have Component or SCART, which is basically your component pushed together in one block. When iTV is released here it will also include component to SCART as a standard accesory.
They did last February - http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/02/27/story5.html
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060227183355.shtml
Wonder if they are using it for iTunes?
I know, otherwise I wouldn't have known anything about data centers in the first place. They probably use it for iTS, since ,Mac hasn't really grown much
In Belgium they promised us TV shows for still no word if that will be the case.
It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs.
Not true, al least not here in Belgium, and probably not in the US, too.
All TV sets here have Component or SCART, which is basically your component pushed together in one block. When iTV is released here it will also include component to SCART as a standard accesory.
They did last February - http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/02/27/story5.html
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060227183355.shtml
Wonder if they are using it for iTunes?
I know, otherwise I wouldn't have known anything about data centers in the first place. They probably use it for iTS, since ,Mac hasn't really grown much
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 02:33 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
4God
Aug 28, 12:16 PM
Merom... (http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom)
Yeah for the portables, but Conroe for the desktop.
Yeah for the portables, but Conroe for the desktop.
Northgrove
Mar 22, 01:49 PM
Filled under "No ****, Sherlock"
Haha, I agree. I always assume that Apple are about to bring their various desktop systems in line with their latest laptops technologically, and that assumption is very rarely wrong. :p
Seems like a "safe" rumor to me. He may even be making this up to build buzz, and probably still be right...
Haha, I agree. I always assume that Apple are about to bring their various desktop systems in line with their latest laptops technologically, and that assumption is very rarely wrong. :p
Seems like a "safe" rumor to me. He may even be making this up to build buzz, and probably still be right...
someguy
Oct 12, 09:48 PM
I have to pay an extra $10 and that goes where?
First of all, you don't have to do anything.
Second, have you been reading this thread at all?
First of all, you don't have to do anything.
Second, have you been reading this thread at all?
Zimmy
Sep 14, 06:34 AM
i agree i would snap it up the day it comes out..
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
nlr
Apr 30, 04:59 PM
will we be able to play crysis on bootcamp with the new graphic cards?
toughboy
Apr 25, 01:01 PM
Liquid-metal!!!
About time!
About time!
rloechner
Mar 30, 01:28 PM
Actually M$ its:
"App Store"
Take that.
"App Store"
Take that.
guet
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.
Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.
The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.
Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.
Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.
The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.
0 comments:
Post a Comment