coder12
Apr 19, 11:14 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
One step closer to... every refresh? :)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
One step closer to... every refresh? :)
tann
Mar 25, 03:54 PM
Wow! This looks insane!! I didn't realise that the iPad was so powerful!
Makes me want one more now :(!
Makes me want one more now :(!
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).
baddj
Mar 31, 04:58 PM
The color really means that much to you?
The top of it just does not look like it was meant to be a desktop app. makes me think of all the windows software you get how they over do the look of it.
The top of it just does not look like it was meant to be a desktop app. makes me think of all the windows software you get how they over do the look of it.
prady16
Sep 1, 11:47 AM
Wow......Time for replacing my desktop!
vincenz
Feb 23, 02:36 PM
This is my first Mac computer so nothing special but I love it.
Nice place to start for sure.
Nice place to start for sure.
jakemikey
Aug 25, 11:59 AM
Sadly, I've tried to make cheaper VIA based mini-ITX systems. I usually end up getting a better buy from a Mac Mini.
Not if you're going for an embedded system that doesn't need a heavy duty CPU and graphics. I built a fanless home server/internet filter/firewall box for less than $200 (and this is in the mini form factor - mini-ITX). A mini would be overkill for that and almost all of the other above listed embedded applications. Get the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I would never use a VIA system for a desktop, but for almost every embedded application they're fantastic.
Not if you're going for an embedded system that doesn't need a heavy duty CPU and graphics. I built a fanless home server/internet filter/firewall box for less than $200 (and this is in the mini form factor - mini-ITX). A mini would be overkill for that and almost all of the other above listed embedded applications. Get the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I would never use a VIA system for a desktop, but for almost every embedded application they're fantastic.
mfram
Feb 26, 02:31 PM
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.
Don't know about trucks, but Volkswagon has been selling 2.0L 4-cyl diesel engines for a while. You can get a Jetta Wagon TDI.... but that's not quite the same as a truck.
I personally own a Jetta TDI sedan. It's a nice engine.
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
Don't know about trucks, but Volkswagon has been selling 2.0L 4-cyl diesel engines for a while. You can get a Jetta Wagon TDI.... but that's not quite the same as a truck.
I personally own a Jetta TDI sedan. It's a nice engine.
DesignDJ
Oct 23, 08:50 AM
This news just in....
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
danvdr
Oct 23, 06:42 PM
Along with the macbook and MB pro getting updates, for $14.95 you can download an ipod nano or ipod patch/software that lets you listen to FM radio without having to purchase the radio remote. Interface is the same as with the remote.
Cool beans. Where can you get this download?
Cool beans. Where can you get this download?
Dagless
Mar 22, 04:17 PM
Superb! I hope they keep it alive until flash chips gets cheaper and the storage increases. I use my old 5.5G to store my videos, leaving my iPod touch with the music.
Storm9
Oct 13, 10:54 PM
Thanks! I'll try it on my work computer, its a quad.
fertilized-egg
Apr 2, 11:08 PM
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
I think so too. The toaster vs oven analogy works better than Jobs' truck vs car analogy. somebody send Jobs an email so he can steal it :D
I think so too. The toaster vs oven analogy works better than Jobs' truck vs car analogy. somebody send Jobs an email so he can steal it :D
cleanup
Nov 27, 05:09 PM
Gift for my mom. She rides her bike 10 miles to and from work a few times a week:
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8065/appleipodnano6thgenerat.jpg
I cycle to work and school daily (except in the coming winter months) and I gotta tell you, cyclists who listen to music while they ride are clearly not very concerned for their own or anyone else's safety! No offense, but for your mother's sake, I hope she keeps the volume REALLY low, or doesn't use the iPod at all. It's rather dangerous, IMHO.
Haven't started Christmas shopping yet (unlike Surely) so I haven't got any good karma, but nevertheless picked up a new pair of jeans for myself. D'oh. :(
http://images.asos.com/inv/s/15/95/525822/dripdry/image1xl.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8065/appleipodnano6thgenerat.jpg
I cycle to work and school daily (except in the coming winter months) and I gotta tell you, cyclists who listen to music while they ride are clearly not very concerned for their own or anyone else's safety! No offense, but for your mother's sake, I hope she keeps the volume REALLY low, or doesn't use the iPod at all. It's rather dangerous, IMHO.
Haven't started Christmas shopping yet (unlike Surely) so I haven't got any good karma, but nevertheless picked up a new pair of jeans for myself. D'oh. :(
http://images.asos.com/inv/s/15/95/525822/dripdry/image1xl.jpg
obeygiant
Mar 22, 12:46 PM
Wasn't sure, so had to ask. :)
It's such a weird notion, that people can choose their sexual orientation. But then, I don't believe that's what many really believe when they say it... instead, I get the vibe that what they mean to say is 'why can't you just closet yourself and act straight?'.
Its also a weird notion that sexual orientation is a black and white issue. People gay or straight have sex with others contrary to their orientation all the time. Skin is skin, and the brain, the biggest sex organ in the human body, can be trained and retrained in a million different ways. Whatever turns you on is what turns you on.
It's such a weird notion, that people can choose their sexual orientation. But then, I don't believe that's what many really believe when they say it... instead, I get the vibe that what they mean to say is 'why can't you just closet yourself and act straight?'.
Its also a weird notion that sexual orientation is a black and white issue. People gay or straight have sex with others contrary to their orientation all the time. Skin is skin, and the brain, the biggest sex organ in the human body, can be trained and retrained in a million different ways. Whatever turns you on is what turns you on.
lazyrighteye
Sep 1, 01:56 PM
i wonder if it will lose its chin?! ^^^^^^ yes...precisely
If so, a 23" chinless iMac might find it's way to my family.
If so, a 23" chinless iMac might find it's way to my family.
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).
Fukui
Mar 21, 07:18 PM
Thats not the least bit true ! and if you lived in Japan - you would understand. I don't mean to be rude at all. Dell for example has desktops for under 100 000 yen (about $1 200 US)....
Yea, actually they have even cheaper ones, and dells are starting to take over business buying in Japan, just like america will inflate thier numbers.
BTW, companies like sony/apple will probably never get as large share as dell becuase businesses just want cheap boxes, but Japanese PEOPLE I would say buy higher quality computers (mac or pc) than busineses do. If you research consumer market share apple is pretty healthy, just like sony, though they (apple) may actually make a profit on them.
Yea, actually they have even cheaper ones, and dells are starting to take over business buying in Japan, just like america will inflate thier numbers.
BTW, companies like sony/apple will probably never get as large share as dell becuase businesses just want cheap boxes, but Japanese PEOPLE I would say buy higher quality computers (mac or pc) than busineses do. If you research consumer market share apple is pretty healthy, just like sony, though they (apple) may actually make a profit on them.
standingquiet
Jan 10, 07:42 PM
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
IMO F1 died along time ago it's so boring now. My favourite, most entertaining and close action racing is British and World Touring Cars.
IMO F1 died along time ago it's so boring now. My favourite, most entertaining and close action racing is British and World Touring Cars.
know-it-all5
Jul 18, 10:18 AM
I'm sufficiently excited. Here's hoping for higher quality (than the current TV shows).
if there will be a true video ipod coming out in the nearer future apple is forced to offer better quality. Bigger screen=Better Quality
Apple offers these shows etc. for the ipod (the availability to use these on our computer is a freebie) thus the current quality is fine for the current ipod's screen.
I have a feeling any new videos being added to the store around the new ipod release will also likely be widescreen. This will be needed!!!
if there will be a true video ipod coming out in the nearer future apple is forced to offer better quality. Bigger screen=Better Quality
Apple offers these shows etc. for the ipod (the availability to use these on our computer is a freebie) thus the current quality is fine for the current ipod's screen.
I have a feeling any new videos being added to the store around the new ipod release will also likely be widescreen. This will be needed!!!
vvv
Nov 28, 07:29 PM
I know someone brought it up earlier, but XBOX people, XBOX. When the XBOX first came out, people said it was too big, that they didn't know what they were doing, that they would fail, and it had a pretty, ok very rocky start. And now the XBOX 360 looks like it may very well dominate this generation.....
Evangelion
Jul 20, 05:11 AM
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
Stock-price is irrelevant, what matter is the market-capitalization. Quite often I see people comparing two companies and saying stuff like "Company A has a shareprice of $50, whereas Company B has a shareprice of $60. Therefore Company B is better".
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
Stock-price is irrelevant, what matter is the market-capitalization. Quite often I see people comparing two companies and saying stuff like "Company A has a shareprice of $50, whereas Company B has a shareprice of $60. Therefore Company B is better".
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:58 PM
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
alexhasfun28
Apr 2, 07:24 PM
This is something people need to realize once in a while. It’s not about CPU and RAM. A Droid Incredible can have an 8 megapixel camera, and the photo quality may be not be the best people expect. An iPhone 4 can have 5 megapixels in a sensor and people are delighted with the quality!
Specs are nice, but learning that it actually WORKS, is something other.
Specs are nice, but learning that it actually WORKS, is something other.
