Brandon Sharitt
Sep 26, 07:06 AM
I won't be in the market for a new phone until late next year, around August or so. Hopefully by then Cingular's exclusiveness will be over, although I'm not sure who my next carrier will be, Cingular or T-mobile.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:35 PM
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
Again, you are wrong.
Again, you are wrong.
Cooknn
Sep 11, 12:44 PM
A lot of things have to go right for me to be impressed tomorrow.
thank you movie songs free
thank you movie 2011 songs.
The song
thank you movie poster.
Hindi Movie Thank You Songs
Full Volume Lyrics, Thank You Movie Songs Download
Pyaar Do Pyaar Lo Lyrics, Thank You Movie Songs Download
thank you movie songs video.
thank you movie songs free
thank you movie premiere
Thank you movie video songs
thank you movie songs video.
Thank You – Snap Shots
Full Volume - Thank You Movie
Movie Name: Thank You
Thank You Movie Review
DotComName
Apr 19, 09:22 AM
obviously they will "respond strongly"....that's what people with expensive lawyers do... doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the stronger case. Most people sue Apple (sometimes rightfully so), but in this case, it is undeniable that Samsung has hijacked Apple's intellectual property, MOST NOTABLY I THINK with the UI skin on their Android phones... Takes a triple take to realize that it's not stock iOS.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
amols
Sep 12, 02:20 PM
Disappointment...What can I say!! May be I was expecting too much :(
miamialley
Mar 23, 05:38 PM
Nobody likes drunk driving, but Apple cannot pull this. Freedom of speech!
amols
Sep 12, 02:28 PM
Album art browsing is beautiful. Now that's one more reason to get art cover for all the songs in my library.
Leoff
Sep 26, 08:07 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
BornAgainMac
Mar 22, 01:30 PM
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
bitfactory
Oct 27, 09:36 AM
If, say, Steinberg didn't like the fact that girls were hanbding out Protools leaflets in the aisles near their stand do you think Protools would have been kicked out?
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
Joshuarocks
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
One word: Who cares about USB 3.0? I have nothing anyway which can make use of USB 3.. nor do I have thunderbolt anything.
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
bjdku
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
Well, I for one wish apple would come out with this thing already. I would pay my savings just to end the anguish (figure of speech, hat tip QCassidy352)! Bury the Chocolate! I hate seeing that iPod wanna-be!
Well, I for one wish apple would come out with this thing already. I would pay my savings just to end the anguish (figure of speech, hat tip QCassidy352)! Bury the Chocolate! I hate seeing that iPod wanna-be!
SilianRail
Apr 14, 03:07 PM
in all seriousness people, this thing http://snowulf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/USB-3-Mini-B-Connector.jpg is going to scare people off...Hideous
Meandmunch
Mar 22, 02:46 PM
Call me spoiled by all things thin, I think the iMac is looking pretty chunky these days. Not sure why it isn't significantly thinner than it is. The next time they do update the form factor it should essentially look like a giant first gen iPad.
jonnysods
Apr 14, 01:15 PM
Guys, should I buy now or wa......
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
I predict Apple will update from Core 1 to Core 2 within eight days. The only changes beside the CPU is perhaps a doubling of video memory on the iMac and MBPs.
0815
Apr 22, 07:57 AM
You'll go nutz in couple decades when our CPU's aren't even in our homes anymore. Start to get used to the idea of "cloud" slowly :)
Back to the seventies - history repeats itself :eek:
My favorite is the dropbox cloud approach, which is a nice hybrid: I have everything local but I have it accessible in the cloud and synced to all the machines I care about. (Won't work for my music lib since too big) ... but while we have no affordable fast internet everywhere, this is the solution of my choice. That way I can work on the local data while 'offline' and it syncs back to the cloud once I am online again.
Nice to see that Apple is putting out a solution that will work for my music lib, and I hope it is a similar hybrid approach. I just hope it is true that it allows to add music not purchased in the iTunes Store ... I have tons of CDs that I ripped into my iTunes library (I was buying CDs since they day CDs came out in the last century and have a quite big collection).
Back to the seventies - history repeats itself :eek:
My favorite is the dropbox cloud approach, which is a nice hybrid: I have everything local but I have it accessible in the cloud and synced to all the machines I care about. (Won't work for my music lib since too big) ... but while we have no affordable fast internet everywhere, this is the solution of my choice. That way I can work on the local data while 'offline' and it syncs back to the cloud once I am online again.
Nice to see that Apple is putting out a solution that will work for my music lib, and I hope it is a similar hybrid approach. I just hope it is true that it allows to add music not purchased in the iTunes Store ... I have tons of CDs that I ripped into my iTunes library (I was buying CDs since they day CDs came out in the last century and have a quite big collection).
nomad01
Sep 14, 01:47 AM
Its an ipod with a longer screen and a slider.....well at least for me I see nothing too interesting in it...just another ipod you can talk to.
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
EagerDragon
Sep 14, 06:33 PM
I doubt we'll see some headless tower (apart from the macpro) i honestly don't think its in apple's interest to openup a new price point. Mac mini provides a nice entry for windows users, people wanting something next to their tv, or have the monitor etc already. MacBook provides mobile low end. iMac allows a bit more power and features over the mini for home users wanting a bit more and companies and people who dont need the power of the Mac Pro. MacBook Pro is high end portable allowing for graphics, photography, design, etc, and to some extent gaming on the go. The Mac Pro is the beast, a workstation more than a desktop and therefore is over specced for the normal user. But why put in a new model in between a imac and a mac pro when having the gap forces people looking for more than an imac to go for the mac pro and increase revenue. By creating an 'in between' model it takes sales away from the popular imac and the expensive mac pro, would probably have to have lower margins to get people to buy it and would just float about in the middle. Maybe die a fate similar to the cube? I don't see it being a smart move.
Mac Pro is not a gaming machine. The memory kills it. It is a server/workstation class designed to worked on large pieces of data.
Gaming is very different and can not use slow memory, it needs to be snappy. Apple does need to make the Gamer machine but it does not have to be as big as the Mac Pro. Kensfield is a real possibility in that system, and yes it is coming in my opinion. Not so much for us but for selling to Wintel users and potential switchers.
Mac Pro is not a gaming machine. The memory kills it. It is a server/workstation class designed to worked on large pieces of data.
Gaming is very different and can not use slow memory, it needs to be snappy. Apple does need to make the Gamer machine but it does not have to be as big as the Mac Pro. Kensfield is a real possibility in that system, and yes it is coming in my opinion. Not so much for us but for selling to Wintel users and potential switchers.
Silentwave
Jul 18, 09:08 PM
Any one know when the 45nm architecture processors are going to appear?
I'm gonna wait for those, for OS X 10.5 and iLife 07 to invest in a Mac
On track for 2007.
I'm gonna wait for those, for OS X 10.5 and iLife 07 to invest in a Mac
On track for 2007.
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
donlphi
Sep 16, 12:54 PM
I'm soooo over the iPhone idea. I'm sort of hoping Apple comes out with iTelegraph or iMorse Code. RETRO IS VERY IN RIGHT NOW!