Peace
Sep 1, 11:44 AM
With speculation that Apple will be switching to NVidia I wonder if this 23" will have the new NVidia with HDMI support ?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:37 AM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
840quadra
Sep 13, 10:01 PM
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.
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement�" itself and not the codename
Regards,
840Quadra
AKA Cyclone
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement�" itself and not the codename
Regards,
840Quadra
AKA Cyclone
Analog Kid
Sep 16, 05:09 AM
GPS, whay arent you accurate? Oh right, security issues....
This is off topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding to boot... Are you saying GPS isn't accurate? It's been running at full accuracy for years now-- you can get to a couple feet with WAAS, better than a centimeter using differential techniques. The principle limitation on accuracy is atmospheric effects, not security concerns.
This is off topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding to boot... Are you saying GPS isn't accurate? It's been running at full accuracy for years now-- you can get to a couple feet with WAAS, better than a centimeter using differential techniques. The principle limitation on accuracy is atmospheric effects, not security concerns.
lmalave
Oct 27, 10:19 AM
Thank you, Greenpeace. Public awareness is what it's all about. If Apple does not like it, maybe it's time to shape up and actually try to live up to the "environmentally friendly" image that they have been trying to create.
Implicit in this comment is that Apple "didn't like" Greenpeace and tried to shut them down. Why the assumption that Apple was behind this? If this MacExpo is anything like the MacWorlds here in the U.S., then it's not run directly by Apple., so it would've been the decision of whoever was running MacExpo to actually kick Greenpeace out...
Implicit in this comment is that Apple "didn't like" Greenpeace and tried to shut them down. Why the assumption that Apple was behind this? If this MacExpo is anything like the MacWorlds here in the U.S., then it's not run directly by Apple., so it would've been the decision of whoever was running MacExpo to actually kick Greenpeace out...
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 06:46 AM
Powerbook G5 tomorrow!!! LOL ok, ok.. before someone shoots me .....
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.
Benjy91
Apr 19, 07:07 AM
No ... YOU want.
Yep, he's the only iPhone user in the world who wants a better notication system, and a built in radio so he doesnt have to stream it over the internet. :rolleyes:
Yep, he's the only iPhone user in the world who wants a better notication system, and a built in radio so he doesnt have to stream it over the internet. :rolleyes:
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 03:57 PM
But as I said, for HOME viewing, is there a precedent for ads?
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.
vansouza
Sep 12, 02:23 PM
I for one am stoked.. will upgrade my G5 when ever and get the new G5 when I can. Soon.. that iTV bit is too totally cool... want one...
aswitcher
Sep 10, 06:44 AM
Given this event is on, is this now the only thing going on this week that we expect Apple to release something new?
I ask because Paris Expo is on and I was wondering if people had reason to believe that might also be used to release new Apple stuff without a keynote.
I ask because Paris Expo is on and I was wondering if people had reason to believe that might also be used to release new Apple stuff without a keynote.
martygras9
Mar 23, 04:16 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
EagerDragon
Sep 26, 08:07 PM
The phone needs to be open!
I am tired of getting rip off by the providers, phones need to be able to move from one provider to another.
I am tired of getting rip off by the providers, phones need to be able to move from one provider to another.
Donz0r
Sep 13, 09:45 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.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
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.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
fawlty
Sep 13, 09:36 PM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
User3977
Mar 29, 11:33 AM
dont think i saw it posted but one issue i have is that the iOS is on one device, the others are on how many devices made by how many makers? RIM is the only one like apple single os on single device and they just evolved to slow to keep up i think.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
linux2mac
Apr 28, 10:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket........
"Racket" is the best word to describe it. I spent thousands on Microsoft and never received a quality product after almost two decades. Shame on them.
MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket........
"Racket" is the best word to describe it. I spent thousands on Microsoft and never received a quality product after almost two decades. Shame on them.
aegisdesign
Sep 11, 07:17 AM
But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.
That's a very, very small market.
Half-Life on the PC sold 8 million out of a market of 250 million PCs bought that year. ie. 3% of PC owners bought it. I'd guess the number of those running SLI is in the order of that kind of percentage again, maybe 10% of that 3%.
And that's a top game. Most decent games sell in the order of 1 million.
The Sims sold 16 million and doesn't need SLI at all which IMHO goes to show that developers should concentrate on original games instead of yet another FPS.
That's a very, very small market.
Half-Life on the PC sold 8 million out of a market of 250 million PCs bought that year. ie. 3% of PC owners bought it. I'd guess the number of those running SLI is in the order of that kind of percentage again, maybe 10% of that 3%.
And that's a top game. Most decent games sell in the order of 1 million.
The Sims sold 16 million and doesn't need SLI at all which IMHO goes to show that developers should concentrate on original games instead of yet another FPS.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 05:18 PM
A number one customer in their electronics division that accounts to a whopping 4 % of Samsungs sales
The reliance Apple has on Samsung is much more than that Samsung has on Apple...
maybe maybe not. My guess is Apple would be hurt more since Samsung would have a fairly easy time filling up most of those lost orders. Reason why is because shortage of those type of parts. Everyone is fighting over them.
Samsung is one of Apple largest suppliers.
The reliance Apple has on Samsung is much more than that Samsung has on Apple...
maybe maybe not. My guess is Apple would be hurt more since Samsung would have a fairly easy time filling up most of those lost orders. Reason why is because shortage of those type of parts. Everyone is fighting over them.
Samsung is one of Apple largest suppliers.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 10:22 AM
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
so true.
Even going the speed limit some random things can happen. I was driving back to Dallas a few years ago going speed limit (65 or 70 mph) and was common around a gentel bend in the road. bend end and font of my car is not facing straight down the road but off towards the side. I thinking "something is not right" clicks to me that I am sliding. From there I started fishing tailing and then just lovely skid and went off the road and spun. I come to a stop off the road facing the direction I was coming from.
Threw off the fire chief driving from the other direction and the road workers who all witnessed it. To them it looked like I had a blow out and just could not recover from it.
Nope what happen was TXDOT had just re-rocked the road and the new asphalt had not been pounded in yet by the cars. Complete a freak thing.
Now they did tell me they would send the sweeper down to clean up the road again since that should not of happened. I will tell you that it was rather freaky having that happen. I can tell you that most people never experience a true skid at speed and telling you to turn into the skid works in theory but in reality it is very hard not to over correct.
so true.
Even going the speed limit some random things can happen. I was driving back to Dallas a few years ago going speed limit (65 or 70 mph) and was common around a gentel bend in the road. bend end and font of my car is not facing straight down the road but off towards the side. I thinking "something is not right" clicks to me that I am sliding. From there I started fishing tailing and then just lovely skid and went off the road and spun. I come to a stop off the road facing the direction I was coming from.
Threw off the fire chief driving from the other direction and the road workers who all witnessed it. To them it looked like I had a blow out and just could not recover from it.
Nope what happen was TXDOT had just re-rocked the road and the new asphalt had not been pounded in yet by the cars. Complete a freak thing.
Now they did tell me they would send the sweeper down to clean up the road again since that should not of happened. I will tell you that it was rather freaky having that happen. I can tell you that most people never experience a true skid at speed and telling you to turn into the skid works in theory but in reality it is very hard not to over correct.
richard.mac
Apr 22, 01:56 AM
…store songs they’ve purchased from its iTunes store, as well as others songs stored on their hard drives, and listen to them on multiple devices
yes! was hoping it would not be only songs purchased from the iTunes Store. will probably be a subscription service with Mobile Me, but if it was only iTunes purchased songs then that would be a deal breaker.
streaming original masters of the song to prevent uploading is very smart, but will probably be only for iTunes purchased songs.
yes! was hoping it would not be only songs purchased from the iTunes Store. will probably be a subscription service with Mobile Me, but if it was only iTunes purchased songs then that would be a deal breaker.
streaming original masters of the song to prevent uploading is very smart, but will probably be only for iTunes purchased songs.
tblrsa
Apr 19, 10:58 AM
I�m a recent Mac User, research reveals the fact that AV companies are crying wolf about OSX being targeted by hackers since 2000 though.
What I do is scanning my Mail Downloads and Mail folder from time to time with ClamXAV, just to make sure no stupid Windows Trojans are taking up my precious HD Space.
Everything else is being solved with brain.app. Heck, i�ve even uninstalled Little Snitch, as it bogged down my system performance and it�s not needed if you know what you are doing with your system. I always keep my system up to date with the latest patches from Apple.
What I do is scanning my Mail Downloads and Mail folder from time to time with ClamXAV, just to make sure no stupid Windows Trojans are taking up my precious HD Space.
Everything else is being solved with brain.app. Heck, i�ve even uninstalled Little Snitch, as it bogged down my system performance and it�s not needed if you know what you are doing with your system. I always keep my system up to date with the latest patches from Apple.
AlBDamned
Aug 23, 04:51 PM
I highly doubt it. Remember, when Apple gets big, they'll have the group of haters that follow Microsoft claiming monopoly.
Well Apple isn't afraid of buying companies. The whole idea for the iPod came not from Apple but from a company they took over.
Well Apple isn't afraid of buying companies. The whole idea for the iPod came not from Apple but from a company they took over.
