macintel4me
Oct 28, 03:34 PM
You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.
huh??
huh??
JoJoCal19
Dec 14, 07:15 AM
I was acutally going to say this same thing. It makes more sense for Apple to put a Verizon/CDMA/LTE...whatever phone on a different release cycle than the GSM phone, as they typically can't even handle the logistical nightmare of releasing the current phone with adequate supply. How long is the thing backordered now when an iPhone is released? How nightmarish is it for them to produce and keep adequate supply of only a GSM iPhone? Now imagine if those production numbers were divided between a Verizon AND the GSM iPhone....you'd never be able to get one! A 6 month split would be almost perfect for releases...it'd give the production lines ample time to get decent numbers of both phones built up. The dual release (unless Apple can get a single chip LTE/CDMA/GSM solution) would be a potential nightmare for FoxConn's assembly plant.
Geckotek and you are correct. When the iPhone 4 was launched Apple couldn't come close to keeping up with demand. The lead time was 4+ weeks and it only pissed people off. If you add in a Verizon model, which is likely to meet or even exceed the demand for an AT&T model if the device were launched at the same time, the lead time would be much longer and Apple would not be able to meet that demand. 6 month in between is not too long. It also keeps Apple launching an iPhone every 6 mos in the US and keep them in the news and take attention away from the Android devices being launched every couple of months.
Geckotek and you are correct. When the iPhone 4 was launched Apple couldn't come close to keeping up with demand. The lead time was 4+ weeks and it only pissed people off. If you add in a Verizon model, which is likely to meet or even exceed the demand for an AT&T model if the device were launched at the same time, the lead time would be much longer and Apple would not be able to meet that demand. 6 month in between is not too long. It also keeps Apple launching an iPhone every 6 mos in the US and keep them in the news and take attention away from the Android devices being launched every couple of months.
Hattig
Aug 2, 08:27 AM
Despite what a couple of posters here seem to be saying, it is good that some countries have a mechanism for protecting consumers from bad situations.
In terms of Apple's DRM however, I think you'll find that each type of DRM is a platform. Much like CDs, cassettes, and so on. I can't play vinyl in my CD player, however I can make a recording of the output, much as I can burn a CD from iTunes of iTMS purchased music.
Also it is not restricted to iPods. You can play it on every Apple Mac and Windows based PC using the freely available software from Apple. You can even play them on a couple of Motorola phones. This will weaken this part of the case against Apple. Apple can say they've taken reasonable measures to ensure that purchased media is available to the purchaser. They'll also state that there is no "No DRM" option available, this is mandated by the music companies. Also they'll state that they're not selling the music under false pretences, and people aren't forced to buy music from their store.
However I hope that the terms and conditions of use are made more consumer friendly. There are laws about terms and conditions when they apply to consumers in the EU - basically they have to be easily understood - i.e., plain english (french, german, etc), and have no unreasonable clauses, and the ability to alter the terms and conditions is an unreasonable clause.
In the past Apple has used that clause to reduce the number of playlist recordings down from 7 to 5 - I don't remember if this happened before iTMS was available outside the US however.
In terms of Apple's DRM however, I think you'll find that each type of DRM is a platform. Much like CDs, cassettes, and so on. I can't play vinyl in my CD player, however I can make a recording of the output, much as I can burn a CD from iTunes of iTMS purchased music.
Also it is not restricted to iPods. You can play it on every Apple Mac and Windows based PC using the freely available software from Apple. You can even play them on a couple of Motorola phones. This will weaken this part of the case against Apple. Apple can say they've taken reasonable measures to ensure that purchased media is available to the purchaser. They'll also state that there is no "No DRM" option available, this is mandated by the music companies. Also they'll state that they're not selling the music under false pretences, and people aren't forced to buy music from their store.
However I hope that the terms and conditions of use are made more consumer friendly. There are laws about terms and conditions when they apply to consumers in the EU - basically they have to be easily understood - i.e., plain english (french, german, etc), and have no unreasonable clauses, and the ability to alter the terms and conditions is an unreasonable clause.
In the past Apple has used that clause to reduce the number of playlist recordings down from 7 to 5 - I don't remember if this happened before iTMS was available outside the US however.
applemacdude
Jan 12, 06:56 PM
He didn't do it by himself. There was a whole company working on things. The difference is that he had a vision of what should be happening.
It took smart people in all areas to make Apple what it is today.
What about all the former Apple CEO's. They had a company behind him too, but he simply could not lead like Jobs can.
It took smart people in all areas to make Apple what it is today.
What about all the former Apple CEO's. They had a company behind him too, but he simply could not lead like Jobs can.
GregA
Oct 3, 05:02 AM
Bear in mind, there is nothing inherently bad in a company having a monopoly, not even Microsoft. What's bad (and illegal) is when a company in such a position abuses its monopolistic power.
Occassionally it can be beneficial to have one company setting certain standards. However, the value of competition is that the stronger/better thrive (while the weak adapt or die out). If you have a monopoly, that disappears.
The most important thing is that we don't create a system where the weaker stuff can survive because a monoply throws more money into it, while the better one can't make it.
How does this relate to everything? I don't know... maybe I lost the point... oh no here it is.
At the moment Apple competes as an entire ecosystem (iPod/iTunes/iTMS) against other combinations... and everything is still improving for consumers. So that's a good thing. Apple is using its muscle to force open some new markets, which again is good. I think we need Apple to do what it's doing with the iPod, for now, but it also needs the flexibility to know when to work with everyone (like MS does). I think they'll have to open up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS trifecta soonish, but they might not realise till it's too late.
And on a personal note - iPod/iTunes/iTMS is great if you've got all 3. If you don't have iTMS movies, where do you buy movies from? What about if you're a BIG movie renter, but never buy them - what choice do you have?
The single option both forces big change, and stops flexibility.
Occassionally it can be beneficial to have one company setting certain standards. However, the value of competition is that the stronger/better thrive (while the weak adapt or die out). If you have a monopoly, that disappears.
The most important thing is that we don't create a system where the weaker stuff can survive because a monoply throws more money into it, while the better one can't make it.
How does this relate to everything? I don't know... maybe I lost the point... oh no here it is.
At the moment Apple competes as an entire ecosystem (iPod/iTunes/iTMS) against other combinations... and everything is still improving for consumers. So that's a good thing. Apple is using its muscle to force open some new markets, which again is good. I think we need Apple to do what it's doing with the iPod, for now, but it also needs the flexibility to know when to work with everyone (like MS does). I think they'll have to open up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS trifecta soonish, but they might not realise till it's too late.
And on a personal note - iPod/iTunes/iTMS is great if you've got all 3. If you don't have iTMS movies, where do you buy movies from? What about if you're a BIG movie renter, but never buy them - what choice do you have?
The single option both forces big change, and stops flexibility.
lmalave
Oct 20, 10:09 AM
I do have a great deal of faith. My friends think I am nuts. Half the money is on margin and I am paying $420 a month in interest. Just a few months ago when it was down to $50 I had a margin call and I was in the hole $28K before having to dump 10K to cover the call. I did not mind since I did cash out last year with a nice 29K profit.
Apple is a strong company with over $1 billion in cash and a growth rate unmatched in the industry. If I can hang in and keep it I will double my money in a little over a year.
Whoa dude. Good for you, but you are playing a *very, very* dangerous game leveraging that much. You don't know what could happen in the stock market. It might not have anything to do with Apple - it could be another terrorist attack in the U.S., or some other world-shaking event overseas (e.g. coup in Russia, revolts in China).
Don't do it, man. You're already making money on Apple stock - don't get greedy. Let me give you a cautionary tale: in 2000 my stock portfolio went from $100,000 to $30,000 in a matter of days. Not because the market went down by 70%, but rather because I was buying heavily on margin and the market went down by 20 or 30% or more in a few days (more in the tech stocks I owned). And I did *not* own any dot-bomb stocks. I invested in solid tech companies that are still doing well today, like BEA and IBM. The drop in stock price had *nothing* to do with the fundamental strength of the company or even their recent performance. It was just a market-wide overreaction. Give it some serious thought, man...
P.S. Since then, I've basically only invested in market-indexed funds (mostly S&P 500 but also some international funds since countries like India and China are growing faster than U.S.). I figure if I'm gonna get rich it's going to be based on what's happening in my career/professional life, not based on any investments. I just don't need the grief of seein my hard-earned cash flushed down the drain because of events I have no control over.
Apple is a strong company with over $1 billion in cash and a growth rate unmatched in the industry. If I can hang in and keep it I will double my money in a little over a year.
Whoa dude. Good for you, but you are playing a *very, very* dangerous game leveraging that much. You don't know what could happen in the stock market. It might not have anything to do with Apple - it could be another terrorist attack in the U.S., or some other world-shaking event overseas (e.g. coup in Russia, revolts in China).
Don't do it, man. You're already making money on Apple stock - don't get greedy. Let me give you a cautionary tale: in 2000 my stock portfolio went from $100,000 to $30,000 in a matter of days. Not because the market went down by 70%, but rather because I was buying heavily on margin and the market went down by 20 or 30% or more in a few days (more in the tech stocks I owned). And I did *not* own any dot-bomb stocks. I invested in solid tech companies that are still doing well today, like BEA and IBM. The drop in stock price had *nothing* to do with the fundamental strength of the company or even their recent performance. It was just a market-wide overreaction. Give it some serious thought, man...
P.S. Since then, I've basically only invested in market-indexed funds (mostly S&P 500 but also some international funds since countries like India and China are growing faster than U.S.). I figure if I'm gonna get rich it's going to be based on what's happening in my career/professional life, not based on any investments. I just don't need the grief of seein my hard-earned cash flushed down the drain because of events I have no control over.
JoeG4
Mar 9, 12:38 AM
Apple isn't all that strikingly inventive, companies have been making touch screen candybar phones for a very long time. Apple was not the first, and they weren't really the first to retail-ize the smartphone either. Shoot, they weren't the first to make a dockable smartphone by far. XD
They weren't the first to USB either: All sorts of machines (Compaqs, Sonys, and Packard Bells come to mind) had USB ports before the iMac came to be.
I dunno, I can think of a lot of things that Apple wasn't the first to do, however it's definitely hard NOT to agree that some companies copy Apple to dubious extents.
Take this for example
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/asuset2700aio2.jpg
Or uh.. hrm..
all those HP laptops coming out right now? XD
They weren't the first to USB either: All sorts of machines (Compaqs, Sonys, and Packard Bells come to mind) had USB ports before the iMac came to be.
I dunno, I can think of a lot of things that Apple wasn't the first to do, however it's definitely hard NOT to agree that some companies copy Apple to dubious extents.
Take this for example
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/asuset2700aio2.jpg
Or uh.. hrm..
all those HP laptops coming out right now? XD
demallien
Oct 6, 07:55 AM
How so. Please elaborate?
The decryption keys are everywhere and not top secret. Each iPod and iTunes has access to them. If you can get your hands on them you have something like hymn or FairKeys. Where does one get the encryption key?
EDIT: BTW I'm quite serious, if I got it wrong please help me understand where you're coming from.
B
No, you are WAAAAY off base.
The encryption key is public, the decryption key is private. The decryption key used in iTunes is hidden away to the very best of Apple's ability from the eyes of prying hackers. (at least, one assumes so - it's illegal for me to even try and confirm that.... thanks DCMA)
If I want to exchange confidential information with someone, I am going to need their public key. They can send this to me unencrypted (normally as part of a "certificate" to prove who they are at the same time...). I then use this key to encrypt the secret message, and send the encrypted message to them. They in turn can decrypt this message by using their private key....
Normally, the messages exchanged in this manner are actually symmetric keys (keys that can be used for encrypting and decypting a message). This is certainly the case for iTunes, which uses AES, a symmetric encryption system to encode it's media files.
Contrary to what you seem to think, the keys in iTunes are not freely available. Both the private assymetric key, used to communicate with the server (to obtain the symmetric keys) and all of the symmetric keys, used to decrypt the actual media files, are hidden inside iTunes. Try looking for them on your harddrive, I promise you that you won't find them (unless you are an expert pirate with a few months of your time where you have nothing better to do....)
BTW, that article that you linked earlier about FairPlay has internal consistency problems. If what it says about retrieving keys from the Apple Store is correct, then what it says about VLC can NOT be correct. one or the other is wrong. My money is on the info about retreiving keys is wrong. I do this stuff for a living, and it's certainly NOT how I would do it....
The decryption keys are everywhere and not top secret. Each iPod and iTunes has access to them. If you can get your hands on them you have something like hymn or FairKeys. Where does one get the encryption key?
EDIT: BTW I'm quite serious, if I got it wrong please help me understand where you're coming from.
B
No, you are WAAAAY off base.
The encryption key is public, the decryption key is private. The decryption key used in iTunes is hidden away to the very best of Apple's ability from the eyes of prying hackers. (at least, one assumes so - it's illegal for me to even try and confirm that.... thanks DCMA)
If I want to exchange confidential information with someone, I am going to need their public key. They can send this to me unencrypted (normally as part of a "certificate" to prove who they are at the same time...). I then use this key to encrypt the secret message, and send the encrypted message to them. They in turn can decrypt this message by using their private key....
Normally, the messages exchanged in this manner are actually symmetric keys (keys that can be used for encrypting and decypting a message). This is certainly the case for iTunes, which uses AES, a symmetric encryption system to encode it's media files.
Contrary to what you seem to think, the keys in iTunes are not freely available. Both the private assymetric key, used to communicate with the server (to obtain the symmetric keys) and all of the symmetric keys, used to decrypt the actual media files, are hidden inside iTunes. Try looking for them on your harddrive, I promise you that you won't find them (unless you are an expert pirate with a few months of your time where you have nothing better to do....)
BTW, that article that you linked earlier about FairPlay has internal consistency problems. If what it says about retrieving keys from the Apple Store is correct, then what it says about VLC can NOT be correct. one or the other is wrong. My money is on the info about retreiving keys is wrong. I do this stuff for a living, and it's certainly NOT how I would do it....
sushi
Oct 1, 07:31 PM
Basement. Follow the Gizmodo links and you'll find the rather uninteresting floorplan thereof.
I see. Thanks. :)
I see. Thanks. :)
maclaptop
May 3, 11:38 PM
If I could only find a personal use beyond web browsing.
Since I have a variety of Mac laptops, which are my favs, I've reserved my iPads for web browsing only. Now after many months, keeping them simple and basic provides a certain sense of satisfaction.
They're the only devices I don't even sync or backup. In fact, that's the one thing that feels strange. Especially due to the fact I employ multiple backup strategies for all my other computers and phones.
That said, keeping them box stock for browsing only, is very freeing.
Since I have a variety of Mac laptops, which are my favs, I've reserved my iPads for web browsing only. Now after many months, keeping them simple and basic provides a certain sense of satisfaction.
They're the only devices I don't even sync or backup. In fact, that's the one thing that feels strange. Especially due to the fact I employ multiple backup strategies for all my other computers and phones.
That said, keeping them box stock for browsing only, is very freeing.
Zwhaler
Apr 15, 09:55 PM
Agreed.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 07:34 PM
Downhill since Tiger.
Says a Windows user. :rolleyes:
Says a Windows user. :rolleyes:
Spanky Deluxe
Nov 16, 12:50 PM
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Ace134blue
Mar 17, 11:16 PM
Thats jealousy. If it were me, id just say "Bitch please" and walk away
Daringescape
Nov 16, 04:48 PM
This is off topic, but I was down in San Diego a while ago and saw some iMacs in a hotel lobby with a screen that let you choose between Windows and osX. I have seen boot camp so I know you see 2 different disks when you boot, but these were a windows icon and an osX icon you could click on.
Has anyone else seen this?
Has anyone else seen this?
Rocketman
Dec 13, 10:38 AM
I really hope LTE is on all handsets going forward whether fully deployed or not. It will be deployed. While I am wishing for unicorns here, I also wish both AT&T and Verizon would let the other carriers customers roam on their LTE network, possibly for a monthly fee or a bucket of GB fee. Let's pay them what they are due, but let's have consumer convenience as the primary goal for a change.
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
iSee
Nov 16, 01:51 PM
Hey, there's nothing wrong with Apple using AMD processors, as long as it's a good product.
I mean, suppose AMD comes out with something 50% faster than a CD2 for half the price? Why wouldn't we want to get us some of that?
I don't follow the processor wars, but:
If Intel's got the best processor, I want Apple to be using that.
If AMD's got the best processor, then I want Apple to use that.
If Intel's got the best laptop processor and AMD the best workstation processor, then I want Apple to use both!
I mean, suppose AMD comes out with something 50% faster than a CD2 for half the price? Why wouldn't we want to get us some of that?
I don't follow the processor wars, but:
If Intel's got the best processor, I want Apple to be using that.
If AMD's got the best processor, then I want Apple to use that.
If Intel's got the best laptop processor and AMD the best workstation processor, then I want Apple to use both!
p0intblank
Oct 10, 09:08 PM
I love these rumors! Bring on the iPod video! :D
Zune who?
Zune who?
BC2009
Apr 25, 11:53 AM
I prefer the look of this to the mockup that Josh Topolsky did on thisismynext.com -- probably because I like the look of the iPhone 4. I am ready for this device to ship since I gave my iPhone 3gs a nasty drop on concrete garage floor about a month ago -- the screen is fine, but the GPS no longer works. It's gonna be hard waiting until September.
Still, I doubt the validity of the photos until some information is provided as to how these were obtained.
I am a bit bummed at recent reports that QualComm's 4G/GSM/EVDO-RevA combo chip won't be ready until 2012 -- I was kinda hoping for LTE in the next iPhone -- and there is no way Apple will do an iPhone that would run through its battery in 3.5 hours (not that I would want such a device anyway).
Still, I doubt the validity of the photos until some information is provided as to how these were obtained.
I am a bit bummed at recent reports that QualComm's 4G/GSM/EVDO-RevA combo chip won't be ready until 2012 -- I was kinda hoping for LTE in the next iPhone -- and there is no way Apple will do an iPhone that would run through its battery in 3.5 hours (not that I would want such a device anyway).
kresh
Oct 28, 07:23 PM
I don't think there are many out there who think all software should be free. I think these OSS advocates just want as much free stuff as possible, for many reasons.
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
SevenInchScrew
Mar 13, 04:26 PM
Can you say just one company that seems to capture the needs/desires as Apple has?
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I think you missed the entire point of his post.
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I think you missed the entire point of his post.
zephxiii
Dec 23, 08:57 AM
i usually just read these and do not post, but i decided to finally register and join the action. i know the arguement against lte in the iphone for vzw, but i say why wouldnt they? they like to be on the cutting edge dont they? as to the arguement on the original being edge not 3g, there was no 3g android when the original iphone came out now android has a significant share of the smartphone market and they are coming out with lte devices at ces for verizon. why would apple wnat to be so far behind android phones in terms of lte and 3g. i think that if apple were to launch a lte phone in june, then why not just launch it in february? what is the difference in a few months when people will be buying up lte android phones in droves after CES
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
rkahl
Mar 17, 01:14 PM
You should call and thank your parent's for raising such a LOSER!
nasty devil
May 2, 12:46 PM
I sure hope this improves battery life :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment