rtdunham
Aug 16, 02:57 PM
The addition of wireless really only makes sense if the iPod is to become a communication device (a protable iChat device
what are the technological hurdles preventing apple from introducing an iPod/iPhone that could permit video iChats, in addition to its more conventional music player/phone functions? (the picture phone people have been waiting for since that distant World's Fair)
--apple has iChat software
-- " " tiny iChat cameras in MacBooks
--cellphone technology exists
somebody with more smarts than me run with this, or shoot it down.
thanks
terry
what are the technological hurdles preventing apple from introducing an iPod/iPhone that could permit video iChats, in addition to its more conventional music player/phone functions? (the picture phone people have been waiting for since that distant World's Fair)
--apple has iChat software
-- " " tiny iChat cameras in MacBooks
--cellphone technology exists
somebody with more smarts than me run with this, or shoot it down.
thanks
terry
r.j.s
Apr 27, 10:22 AM
That being said, I'm saying Apple should be granted a trademark on "App Store," but folks like us shouldn't be in violation of anything if we refer to other "app stores." Thing is, if the specifics of Apple's trademark request involves a digital/electronic store-front for selling digital applications, blah blah blah, it's fine that other business shouldn't refer to theirs w/ any form of that term w/in their digital/electronic store-fronts. BlackBerry Appworld is different enough from Apple's "App Store," where Amazon's "appstore" is just too close to Apple's.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
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.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
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.
lordonuthin
Apr 17, 03:58 PM
Hehehe no it's fine, I will post it in this thread however ;)
Just realised that 1 million is very possible for me.
Keep at it ;)
Just realised that 1 million is very possible for me.
Keep at it ;)
SheriffParker
Jan 10, 09:24 PM
can some body put as link to like a pic of a zoone
http://images.google.com/
http://images.google.com/
biscuitdunker
Apr 3, 12:50 PM
wow an ipad 2 being used in the dark and it doesnt leak light! where can i buy one?;)
ouimetnick
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
kokako
Apr 26, 01:27 PM
This annoys me, no way in hell should another plagerist company be allowed to ride apples high, why should they, c'mon mac users get behind apple on this one.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
nioh
Oct 24, 12:57 AM
Here it is! 8 hours early!
60499
you forgot the new and improved hd-screen :D
60499
you forgot the new and improved hd-screen :D
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:31 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
thejedipunk
Jan 7, 01:36 AM
Not that any more predictions from anyone from this point on matter any longer, but what the hell? ;)
LEOPARD LEOPARD LEOPARD
IPOD IPOD IPOD
MACS MACS MACS
iTV will be named with release/ship date
My thoughts on the phone:
I've read much stuff on here about this much epically fabled device. Several good and bad points. First, if the rumor gods are saying that they will release a basic/media phone as well as a smart phone, then, as some have already pointed out, what can Apple bring that is new to the table of basic/media phones? I think Apple should just make a smart phone, considering that more and more people are looking towards smart phone market, which I think has some room for innovation. Plus, at the same time, they can capture that oh-so-crucial enterprise market. SWITCHERS GALORE!!! Even with that, I don't see them being stupid enough to cannibalize iPod/nano/shuffle sales. At most, 2 gigs of space on the phone, which will have to be shared with the phone and any media files.
Take this also into consideration. Why would children even need Apple branded cell phones? Most children today are obviously on a family plan. Which means they get the free phones. The Apple phone would not be priced reasonably enough for me to buy all my kids (if I had kids) such a phone. What if Apple just decides to make the iPod into a super device that can even cook breakfast for you. That kills off all iPod music player sales. Not everyone would buy the phone because what they really wanted was just a music player and not a Digital Age Swiss Army Knife.
But I still want an Apple smart phone. :)
LEOPARD LEOPARD LEOPARD
IPOD IPOD IPOD
MACS MACS MACS
iTV will be named with release/ship date
My thoughts on the phone:
I've read much stuff on here about this much epically fabled device. Several good and bad points. First, if the rumor gods are saying that they will release a basic/media phone as well as a smart phone, then, as some have already pointed out, what can Apple bring that is new to the table of basic/media phones? I think Apple should just make a smart phone, considering that more and more people are looking towards smart phone market, which I think has some room for innovation. Plus, at the same time, they can capture that oh-so-crucial enterprise market. SWITCHERS GALORE!!! Even with that, I don't see them being stupid enough to cannibalize iPod/nano/shuffle sales. At most, 2 gigs of space on the phone, which will have to be shared with the phone and any media files.
Take this also into consideration. Why would children even need Apple branded cell phones? Most children today are obviously on a family plan. Which means they get the free phones. The Apple phone would not be priced reasonably enough for me to buy all my kids (if I had kids) such a phone. What if Apple just decides to make the iPod into a super device that can even cook breakfast for you. That kills off all iPod music player sales. Not everyone would buy the phone because what they really wanted was just a music player and not a Digital Age Swiss Army Knife.
But I still want an Apple smart phone. :)
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 4, 07:25 PM
I will be devastated on the day that my 2002 Golf TDI dies. 50mpg - I drive the hell out of it - I'm a HUGE guy and it's comfy. Oh yeah, and I can fit a full sized washing machine inside the hatch. (or a 50" plasma TV, for that matter)
My favorite memory to date with this car, pulling into a gas station (with a new washing machine in the back, of course) and watching the owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee have a fit about how he can't fit one inside his...
And then I told him my average MPG. :D
My favorite memory to date with this car, pulling into a gas station (with a new washing machine in the back, of course) and watching the owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee have a fit about how he can't fit one inside his...
And then I told him my average MPG. :D
SciFrog
Feb 9, 05:35 PM
Was crunching for another team before. The stats from Berkley show the aggregate as do some tools like the FAH Wudget.
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:29 PM
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
Greydog
Mar 25, 04:24 PM
Would seem a good next step is to empower the ATV with this kind of processing power, while allowing the use of iphones/touches/ipads as controllers. Imaging HUDs and virtual controllers - or Garageband Hero?
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Macopotamus
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
an email from SEPTEMBER of last year is relevant now? maybe they didn't have plans then but are killing it now? things change
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
razzmatazz
Sep 6, 02:34 PM
i know this is off topic but are they ever gonna do anything about the outrageous cost of .Mac subscription?
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
GekiRed
Oct 2, 02:06 PM
I got a Gear4 protective shell for the iPod Touch that I'm waiting to be delivered by my friend in the US today from John Lewis in Liverpool as the Apple Store which is a few seconds walk away didn't have any 4G accessories in stock!
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
thejadedmonkey
Aug 16, 07:47 AM
Well, it sounds like the next iPod's going to be a rather large update if half the rumors are to be believed.
Lollypop
Aug 7, 12:40 AM
If I didn�t have to work this would feel like xmas morning!!! :D If apple are saying these things about leopard they must be very very confident, as much as I love tiger I would love to see Vista smashed into the ground, and apple can do it!
Last week I was hoping for a few new things, now with a lot of potential promise from leopard I will be fine with leopard, the new pros... and maybe the iphone! LOL
<side note... does anyone know how to attach excitement to a post, I can just do pics? :p >
Last week I was hoping for a few new things, now with a lot of potential promise from leopard I will be fine with leopard, the new pros... and maybe the iphone! LOL
<side note... does anyone know how to attach excitement to a post, I can just do pics? :p >
satkin2
May 3, 03:01 AM
So, you're saying that windows programs don't leave files on your computer when uninstalled? Installing and uninstalling a bunch of programs don't make your windows PC slow down? I must be using the wrong programs. Not that I'm saying that Mac's are perfect, but worse than windows? I hope not (I'm not a mac user... Yet)
No, I'm aware that in some cases the Add/Remove doesn't remove all of the traces of an app, that is a failing of the windows method. However it does attempt to remove the system files it creates when a programme is installed.
Once you get used to it and more into the Mac way, its fine to use an app to delete apps, however having come from an OS that has a built in process that attempts this it feels like a feature that is lacking.
Just as dragging an app into the apps folder fully installs, dragging it to the trash should fully uninstall, but it doesn't.
My point was that as the OSX method of dragging apps to the trash don't remove the whole programme, if this new delete process does remove the traces then it is an improvement.
Whether it does or doesn't I don't see anything wrong with this implementation. New Mac users who are familiar with iOS methods will find addoption easier. For those who don't like the method you can just carry on as they do now.
No, I'm aware that in some cases the Add/Remove doesn't remove all of the traces of an app, that is a failing of the windows method. However it does attempt to remove the system files it creates when a programme is installed.
Once you get used to it and more into the Mac way, its fine to use an app to delete apps, however having come from an OS that has a built in process that attempts this it feels like a feature that is lacking.
Just as dragging an app into the apps folder fully installs, dragging it to the trash should fully uninstall, but it doesn't.
My point was that as the OSX method of dragging apps to the trash don't remove the whole programme, if this new delete process does remove the traces then it is an improvement.
Whether it does or doesn't I don't see anything wrong with this implementation. New Mac users who are familiar with iOS methods will find addoption easier. For those who don't like the method you can just carry on as they do now.
Chris Bangle
Aug 16, 11:36 AM
Actually, you can get Sirius in Canada and are able to stream Sirius anywhere in the world IF you have an account registered in the US. I've heard of many international customers setting up accounts to listen abroad.
I'm just saying that I think the two would compliment each other nicely. You could use the service as just an ipod, a receiver for Sirius or BOTH.
Thats far too complicated for Apple.
I'm just saying that I think the two would compliment each other nicely. You could use the service as just an ipod, a receiver for Sirius or BOTH.
Thats far too complicated for Apple.
xionxiox
Apr 2, 07:16 PM
My backlight bleeds
That's funny. Your description lists every apple product you own except the iPad 2 :o
That's funny. Your description lists every apple product you own except the iPad 2 :o
MistaBungle
Jan 11, 05:16 PM
There's something in the air...
planes shipping iPhones to Canada?
planes shipping iPhones to Canada?
Alan-in-NC
Mar 23, 08:03 PM
I cracked open my 5th gen 80GB last year and replaced it with a 220GB kit from Apricorn, so I'm not sure why this drive has been described as "new".
Regardless, like many people here, my library is huge (over 12K songs, plus videos, podcasts, etc), so a flash-based iPod wasn't a solution for me. I'm glad they'll keep the Classic going for awhile longer.
Regardless, like many people here, my library is huge (over 12K songs, plus videos, podcasts, etc), so a flash-based iPod wasn't a solution for me. I'm glad they'll keep the Classic going for awhile longer.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق