Crawn2003
Apr 25, 02:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wow, your mom willingly caused a wreck, sued the guy, and you are proud of it. Man, you and your family are just pathetic.:rolleyes:
I really don't think it is necessary to call me or any member of my family "pathetic." There's nothing wrong with manipulating the system to your advantage, if you do it for a valid purpose (such as teaching a crappy driver a lesson).
-Don
Unless someone uses the system against you and to their advantage, then I bet you'd lose your cool and be crying foul.
Wow, your mom willingly caused a wreck, sued the guy, and you are proud of it. Man, you and your family are just pathetic.:rolleyes:
I really don't think it is necessary to call me or any member of my family "pathetic." There's nothing wrong with manipulating the system to your advantage, if you do it for a valid purpose (such as teaching a crappy driver a lesson).
-Don
Unless someone uses the system against you and to their advantage, then I bet you'd lose your cool and be crying foul.
milo
Mar 30, 01:00 PM
Apple is upset at Amazon for using AppStore.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
What's your point? Are you trying to phrase it in a way that sounds like the two are somehow the same? Apple was awarded the trademark to "app store" and other companies want to use it - whether that trademark holds up we'll have to see.
Go to about 1:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
And what does that have to do with the app store trademark? He doesn't mention "app store" does he?
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point.
Good point. The obvious alternative to App Store is Application Store.
Along those same lines, the term ANDROID was in general use and considered generic and not trademarkable. In Star Wars, George Lucas used the term Droid - since it hadn't been used before he was able to trademark the shorter term (which he still holds).
News Flash 2013 Apple trademarks:
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
What about the Container Store, which is trademarked? Seems like the difference is whether or not the term is in common use before the trademark is filed.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
What's your point? Are you trying to phrase it in a way that sounds like the two are somehow the same? Apple was awarded the trademark to "app store" and other companies want to use it - whether that trademark holds up we'll have to see.
Go to about 1:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
And what does that have to do with the app store trademark? He doesn't mention "app store" does he?
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point.
Good point. The obvious alternative to App Store is Application Store.
Along those same lines, the term ANDROID was in general use and considered generic and not trademarkable. In Star Wars, George Lucas used the term Droid - since it hadn't been used before he was able to trademark the shorter term (which he still holds).
News Flash 2013 Apple trademarks:
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
What about the Container Store, which is trademarked? Seems like the difference is whether or not the term is in common use before the trademark is filed.
marc11
Apr 25, 01:24 PM
This, if it and Ivy Bridge, lower SSD prices/larger capacities come to fruition solidify my decision to stay with my 2010 and wait for the 2012 refresh.
LarryC
Apr 30, 03:28 PM
delete. sorry.
rockets21
Mar 23, 04:21 PM
I live in Nevada and honestly the cops spend more time Giving tickets out then doing real police work. Since the state has been financial hardship, The cops are out drumming up business. Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue. Apple dont bend to the pressure, These apps do not break any rules for the App store and if you start letting the Government decide what should and shouldnt be, is the day I finally Jailbreak my Iphone.
THX1139
Jul 20, 01:49 PM
...Since Intel announced that their four core chips would be available in the last quarter there is another possibility now for Mac Pros: Just Conroe chips for the "low end" replacing the dual core G5s, and the quad core G5 remains the last PowerPC until it is replaced in the last quarter with a much cheaper quad core system based on Intel's Kentsfield quad core desktop chip. Depends on how urgent it is for Apple to finish the transition.
Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
CorvetteZR1
Apr 25, 06:47 PM
Make it thinner and lighter like the Macbook Air and I'd be sold. It'll basically be a more powerful and more functional Macbook Air. I'd take it!
kurtsayin
Oct 12, 11:07 PM
Ultimately: who cares?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes!! I keep asking myself why the hell there is so much Bono/U2 stuff... What if I wanted a "Gordon Lightfoot Edition iPod"?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes!! I keep asking myself why the hell there is so much Bono/U2 stuff... What if I wanted a "Gordon Lightfoot Edition iPod"?
jacollins
Apr 20, 01:57 PM
Something to note. You may be law abiding now, but you never know when you'll be legislated into a criminal tomorrow.
steve_hill4
Sep 9, 08:06 AM
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
*LTD*
Apr 19, 09:27 PM
but there are ways to make Apple life hell and cause huge amounts of problems with out breaking the contract.
Examples are shipments get delayed. Takes longer to process orders.
Apple needs to rush order something and get it quickly..... Guess what not going to happen.
I have seen the back world of things like this. Samsung can do a lot with out breaking the contract. Apple is gaining a reputation not to be trusted in any way shape or form.
No. There aren't. Unless they've gone crazy and don't need a $5 billion partner. Money talks. Not hurt feelings over phone patents.
It really makes no difference. No amount of you wishing hardship on Apple will cause them actual hardship.
Apple has the iPhone and untouchable mindshare.
Samsung is a parts supplier that can be replaced.
Guess who my money's on to come out of this laughing?
There is only one group who's trust Apple actually needs: consumers.
Apple's got that locked. As a result, there are always suppliers wanting to cash in. Apple doesn't need their partners. Apple's partners need Apple. It starts with great ideas for great products. That begins with Apple. The rest is logistics.
Samsung is just sabre-rattling. This in fact, will have ZERO effect on their supply agreements with Apple. It's about a phone. Samsung isn't going to sacrifice their $5+ billion partner when consumers can't get enough of all things Apple. Samsung needs Apple's business.
With that in mind, the fact that Apple insists on fostering negative energy, launching a law suit, and showing their pro war position to the world, is very revealing of who they are.
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
Are you new?
They have always been this way. And the result: PROFIT.
All Apple needs are customers. And they've got no shortage of them. Customers like YOU, for example. You paid for Apple gear, you consent to what they do. You have no cause to complain.
There is no such thing as a "good corporate citizen." It's competitive and very cutthroat.
Samsung will not make things difficult for Apple, or covertly enact some form of vengeance by deliberately messing with supply agreements. That is simply inviting more legal trouble. This is a PHONE issues, NOT a supply agreement issue.
Examples are shipments get delayed. Takes longer to process orders.
Apple needs to rush order something and get it quickly..... Guess what not going to happen.
I have seen the back world of things like this. Samsung can do a lot with out breaking the contract. Apple is gaining a reputation not to be trusted in any way shape or form.
No. There aren't. Unless they've gone crazy and don't need a $5 billion partner. Money talks. Not hurt feelings over phone patents.
It really makes no difference. No amount of you wishing hardship on Apple will cause them actual hardship.
Apple has the iPhone and untouchable mindshare.
Samsung is a parts supplier that can be replaced.
Guess who my money's on to come out of this laughing?
There is only one group who's trust Apple actually needs: consumers.
Apple's got that locked. As a result, there are always suppliers wanting to cash in. Apple doesn't need their partners. Apple's partners need Apple. It starts with great ideas for great products. That begins with Apple. The rest is logistics.
Samsung is just sabre-rattling. This in fact, will have ZERO effect on their supply agreements with Apple. It's about a phone. Samsung isn't going to sacrifice their $5+ billion partner when consumers can't get enough of all things Apple. Samsung needs Apple's business.
With that in mind, the fact that Apple insists on fostering negative energy, launching a law suit, and showing their pro war position to the world, is very revealing of who they are.
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
Are you new?
They have always been this way. And the result: PROFIT.
All Apple needs are customers. And they've got no shortage of them. Customers like YOU, for example. You paid for Apple gear, you consent to what they do. You have no cause to complain.
There is no such thing as a "good corporate citizen." It's competitive and very cutthroat.
Samsung will not make things difficult for Apple, or covertly enact some form of vengeance by deliberately messing with supply agreements. That is simply inviting more legal trouble. This is a PHONE issues, NOT a supply agreement issue.
vand0576
Sep 5, 01:03 PM
The reason for the 1-3 week delay in the Extreme Base Station is due to the new European regulations on certain chemicals going into effect.
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
Macinthetosh
Mar 23, 06:48 PM
Most checkpoints have a warning well in advance. The government is just pointlessly overstepping its boundaries.
kasei
Sep 19, 06:35 PM
This is great news. I guess the more we buy the faster we will see other studios with better movies. I guess I will take the plung and buy a movie today.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 10, 12:38 PM
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
bigjnyc
Apr 25, 12:55 PM
Oh boy I've been trying to hold strong with my perfectly working 2009 MBP and not give in to any updates... This is the longest I've gone with a computer since I started using Macs lol...... But a case re-design might be too much for me.
devman
Sep 26, 10:22 PM
I ended up doing the reverse. I bought a SLVR in China and brought it back to the USA. It's so nice not to have to be on any ****ing "contract". (Sorry, I just really hate the state of the cellphone market in the USA.)
I just want WiFi VoIP phones to come along and wipe out the whole market...I think that will have to wait for WiMax rollouts nationwide, though.
I'm not on a contract. I use their pay-as-you-go offering.
I just want WiFi VoIP phones to come along and wipe out the whole market...I think that will have to wait for WiMax rollouts nationwide, though.
I'm not on a contract. I use their pay-as-you-go offering.
BRLawyer
Apr 30, 06:19 PM
I understand where you are coming from. With your feet planted in set in concrete, unable to fathom future developments based on the experimental or high-end tech of the day, the Blu-Ray seems endlessly of value. Much like the tape reels of the 60s.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
Absolutely right, as I have demonstrated this over and over again in previous posts. BR (and not BD as Sony wants you to have it) is dead in the water.
Not only for "mechanical" reasons, but first and foremost for the simple fact that it brings little added value over DVD (contrary to what happened between VHS and DVD back in the day). DVD in both industrialized and developing markets is still KING; just look at the shelves of electronics stores.
Apple is more than wise to keep its distance from the BR crap.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
Absolutely right, as I have demonstrated this over and over again in previous posts. BR (and not BD as Sony wants you to have it) is dead in the water.
Not only for "mechanical" reasons, but first and foremost for the simple fact that it brings little added value over DVD (contrary to what happened between VHS and DVD back in the day). DVD in both industrialized and developing markets is still KING; just look at the shelves of electronics stores.
Apple is more than wise to keep its distance from the BR crap.
FX120
Apr 16, 12:50 PM
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
cube
Apr 23, 09:19 AM
The 320M is CUDA-capable. Intel is still evaluating OpenCL.
DeathChill
Apr 30, 11:59 PM
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it?
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
pavetheforest
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I would ditch my verizon plan the instant it came out...
Popeye206
Apr 22, 08:51 AM
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
+1 LOL!
Have to laugh... so many people here are upset about nothing. All it says in this rumor is that you would have the option of storing your libraries on-line and access them from multiple points. And if you upload something you already "own" they will take that too. Not just what you've purchased from iTunes.
It's a value added service that I'm sure Apple is looking to do something different with and I'm sure there's more to the story... like that this will be used for Video, books and other media too. The advantages:
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
+1 LOL!
Have to laugh... so many people here are upset about nothing. All it says in this rumor is that you would have the option of storing your libraries on-line and access them from multiple points. And if you upload something you already "own" they will take that too. Not just what you've purchased from iTunes.
It's a value added service that I'm sure Apple is looking to do something different with and I'm sure there's more to the story... like that this will be used for Video, books and other media too. The advantages:
Popeye206
Apr 19, 07:19 AM
I think you mean 4% of 142 million $.....
Samsung's worldwide turnover was only 138.4 billion for 2010. So I'm guessing Apple buys about $6 billion.
I was thinking the same thing... the numbers didn't make sense.
Samsung's worldwide turnover was only 138.4 billion for 2010. So I'm guessing Apple buys about $6 billion.
I was thinking the same thing... the numbers didn't make sense.