oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:03 AM
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
Icaras
Apr 21, 08:57 PM
Because they did it with Snow Leopard and the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air in the summer of 2009.
Yup, exactly. I had purchased the 2009 MBPs in July, which came out in June....SL came out in August...Fortunately, Apple offered a nice grace period for new Mac purchases made a month before SL's release and I was able to get the upgrade for free.
I imagine the same will happen with Lion.
Yup, exactly. I had purchased the 2009 MBPs in July, which came out in June....SL came out in August...Fortunately, Apple offered a nice grace period for new Mac purchases made a month before SL's release and I was able to get the upgrade for free.
I imagine the same will happen with Lion.
dethmaShine
May 2, 06:01 PM
Positioning of apps without click and hold WORKS.
Watch Selena Gomez#39;s “Who
Being gomezselena actress
selena gomez who says
selena gomez who says
selena gomez who says music
selena gomez who says video
selena gomez who says
Selena Gomez and the Scene Who
Selena Gomez#39;s successful
selena gomez who says dress
Style Steal: Selena Gomez Who
Who+says+selena+gomez+
Selena Gomez recently
Who+says+selena+gomez+
Yesterday I posted a blog by
Says!#39; Sneak
Benguitar
Nov 25, 09:37 PM
Couldn't you find a smaller Pelican case? I mean that's why everyone is up in your face :p
You couldn't find a slower Ferrari? :p
It was the smallest water/crush proof case they made.
They had smaller Pelicans that are the yellow/clear or blue/clear that are actually the size of sunglasses cases.
But, I just didn't want my glasses rattling around in a plastic case that will most likely scratch the lenses.
You couldn't find a slower Ferrari? :p
It was the smallest water/crush proof case they made.
They had smaller Pelicans that are the yellow/clear or blue/clear that are actually the size of sunglasses cases.
But, I just didn't want my glasses rattling around in a plastic case that will most likely scratch the lenses.
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:53 PM
And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
HecubusPro
Aug 24, 07:36 PM
nice one... was looking to buy a mini to 'integrate' into my CAR... might wait now, then pick up a core solo intel for cheap! hopefully....
http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
kriskkalu
Jan 5, 06:31 PM
At macworld 2007 Apple will announce that you can download The Beatles music on iTunes and possible there will be a Beatles branded iPod.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 12, 10:03 PM
Well i'll tell you this FCP 5 (floating around in places i won't mention) is around 1.5 GB so If it is on the App store It will be 1 BIG download for me.
(3 Mbps cable line here)
(3 Mbps cable line here)
Full of Win
Mar 23, 01:31 PM
It is a hard drive with a screen! What else can they do? I suppose they could put a 1TB drive in there and add thunderbolt. . . . . That would be interesting!
I hope they don't do much.
The iPod is a portable media tank. Its not for web-browers, its not for apps, its not for contacts, its not for games. What Apple needs to focus on is OUTPUT. Right now its pretty sad, there is a 30 pin connector digital out and a headphone jack out. Moreover, the 30 pin output is limited in that it does not support the newest Apple adapters (VGA or HDMI)
1. Bluetooth Output: Because it is so widespread in cars, speakers and headphones today, this makes so much sense. The battery is likely large enough that it would not cause a significant reduction in battery life.
2. Update Digital Out to support VGA and HDMI output (with internals to match): The iPod should be able to play the same video files as the iPad 2, and upcoming iPod Touch / iPhone 5 and stream them using the HDMI and VGA adapters from Apple.
3. Wi-Fi for Air-Play/Air-Share: Not Wi-Fi for browsing, but Wi-Fi so it can pair to an Apple TV or iPad or whatever and stream videos and music.
I hope they don't do much.
The iPod is a portable media tank. Its not for web-browers, its not for apps, its not for contacts, its not for games. What Apple needs to focus on is OUTPUT. Right now its pretty sad, there is a 30 pin connector digital out and a headphone jack out. Moreover, the 30 pin output is limited in that it does not support the newest Apple adapters (VGA or HDMI)
1. Bluetooth Output: Because it is so widespread in cars, speakers and headphones today, this makes so much sense. The battery is likely large enough that it would not cause a significant reduction in battery life.
2. Update Digital Out to support VGA and HDMI output (with internals to match): The iPod should be able to play the same video files as the iPad 2, and upcoming iPod Touch / iPhone 5 and stream them using the HDMI and VGA adapters from Apple.
3. Wi-Fi for Air-Play/Air-Share: Not Wi-Fi for browsing, but Wi-Fi so it can pair to an Apple TV or iPad or whatever and stream videos and music.
Nishi100
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Is address book the same; and can you post a screenshot, anyway?
MacHamster68
Apr 10, 12:32 AM
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
hmm interesting as the same argument could come from the automatc driving fraction , as because you dont have to concentrate on all these gear changes , wipers headlights ...you could concentrate more on traffic
and after all you are using a Mac and OSX too or ? because it works automatic
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
hmm interesting as the same argument could come from the automatc driving fraction , as because you dont have to concentrate on all these gear changes , wipers headlights ...you could concentrate more on traffic
and after all you are using a Mac and OSX too or ? because it works automatic
SiliconAddict
Aug 24, 11:16 PM
People and their meroms :rolleyes: Anyone would think the messiah is coming :eek:
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
csHokie
May 3, 11:38 PM
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Yeah, it would work great for quick loading, full screen or minimized applications. I'm afraid it would fall apart most everywhere else... and they would have to have more background options than in iOS (can I listen on a socket for incoming connections in a daemon?). Anyway, I don't think they will get rid of the traditional <blank>top multitasking.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Use Firefox and save tabs on exit...
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Yeah, it would work great for quick loading, full screen or minimized applications. I'm afraid it would fall apart most everywhere else... and they would have to have more background options than in iOS (can I listen on a socket for incoming connections in a daemon?). Anyway, I don't think they will get rid of the traditional <blank>top multitasking.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Use Firefox and save tabs on exit...
mterlouw
Sep 6, 09:52 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
umag
Feb 21, 04:28 PM
Hi, can anyone explain me how is the Cinema Display 30" "flying" in Transporteur's 2007 setup (page 79, Part 13)? :confused:
Is he using a VESA wall mount?
Thanks!
Is he using a VESA wall mount?
Thanks!
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:24 AM
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
Bingo! :)
Bingo! :)
rdrr
Nov 27, 01:47 PM
Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)
apb3
Aug 17, 11:49 AM
I don't really see the demand behind adding wireless functionality into the iPod. I think wireless is the buzz word right now and investment managers and industry analysts don't even know what it means.
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
A man (almost - I think XM blows as compared to Sirius, seriously) after my own heart.... ;)
and so much more succinct.:D
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
A man (almost - I think XM blows as compared to Sirius, seriously) after my own heart.... ;)
and so much more succinct.:D
Vegasman
May 2, 05:58 PM
That Windows dialog is horrible. Why is there so much info? Are the file size and image dimensions really helping me decided whether or not I want to delete it? And it has the classic Windows "Yes" and "No" buttons (instead of having something useful like Cancel and Delete). If that dialog pops up, you have to squint your eyes and look all over until you see "Delete ..." in the upper left corner, then take a second to make sure "Yes" actually means "Delete". And if you want to cancel, should you hit "No" or the X in the top right?
That OS X dialog IS NOTHING like that Aero dialog.
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
That OS X dialog IS NOTHING like that Aero dialog.
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
maconservative
Mar 23, 10:29 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
This is a bit presumptuous.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
This is a bit presumptuous.
Aeroflux
Mar 28, 06:49 PM
there's a few misconceptions about the lifespan of consoles - Sony for instance - the PS2 had a 10 year lifespan, but it does overlap with the release of the PS3 - that's how it'll go with the PS4. As for the 360 - that won't be the only platform the MS has on the market - in a couple of years there will be another 'next gen' console from MS.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
DeSnousa
Apr 14, 05:51 PM
So I should put the -bigadv into my i7, it's not a great i7 I think its at 1.66ghz and in a laptop. Should I risk it? How can I maximise the PPD from my i7 as its only doing like 1-2k a day I think.
aswitcher
Jan 12, 05:23 PM
AirMac
AirMacExtreme AirMacPro
Maybe
AirMacExtreme AirMacPro
Maybe
diamond.g
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
It has too seeing as Intel is pushing DRM protection into the physical CPU.
But the GPU still has to decode what was sent and put it on the screen, which is why I asked if the TB itself can do the encoding. If it can how much overhead will that add (again as it has to happen over the PCIe side)?
Or can you send graphics information over DP that still needs to be processed, ie raw frames?
But the GPU still has to decode what was sent and put it on the screen, which is why I asked if the TB itself can do the encoding. If it can how much overhead will that add (again as it has to happen over the PCIe side)?
Or can you send graphics information over DP that still needs to be processed, ie raw frames?
