Slashdot Mirror

I'm looking at the linked article, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It shows the Galaxy SIII at 1560 while it shows the iPhone 5 at 1601. Care to elaborate?

Unfortunately, the original article is gone (though I did read it when it was first published). http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=199763 The dock connector costs $4 to license. I do know this; lots of people know this.

USB? If your a USB-IF member, free to use; otherwise, it's $2000 every 2 years for a vendor ID, with no per-unit costs. If you're producing more than 500 units, USB is cheaper; and that's assuming the connectors themselves cost the same. Here's a hint: the dock connector itself costs more than a USB port.

Take a look at this: http://dx.com/p/5-1-channel-usb-sound-card-adapter-black-59039?item=2

If these guys can sell this thing, shipped from Hong Kong, for $2.80 per unit ($2.02 in quantities of 10 or more), with a USB controller, DAC/ADC, USB port, 2 3.5mm jacks, and a case, how much do you think the USB interface and DAC/ADC added to the cost? Pennies, my friend, pennies. About the price of the resistors and capacitors used to control devices via the dock connector, actually.

As for your last point, if I give a damn about sound quality, I care less about duplicating hardware; I want that signal transmitted digitally and decoded as close to the amplifier as possible. Maybe I'm putting a higher quality DAC in my accessory than Apple put in my iPod? Or maybe it truly is a cheap accessory with a crappy DAC; but, then, how's the quality of an analog signal over a cheap connector? Do you see my point yet?

Interesting (and many thanks for the update), but denying an affiliation with the NCFTA seems odd after making an announcement of a partnership just a few months ago. It definitely has me wondering what's up. The FBI also issued a statement earlier, claiming they were not aware of any evidence that the alleged theft had occurred, which was a nice non-denial. It's all just kinda odd.

You're welcome. Fix released. http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/30/oracle-releases-patch-to-address-security-vulnerability-in-java-7/

It's easy for people to forget but Apple didn't always dominate the MP3 player market. This is mostly interesting for historic value since the top end of the MP3 player market has been getting overrun by smartphones for quite some time already. Their margins on MP3 players (iPod) have already been squashed to near irrelevance.

The retina itself is very tricky to make at this cost. But what's revolutionary that Apple is doing is the design of the LCD plate. Most laptops have a back an LCD 4 layers and then glass. The retina uses the back and front glass as layers 1 and 4. The retina doesn't have an LCD in it, it is an LCD screen with a computer attached, more like a television.

In terms of manufacturing parts, we agree. Lots of little variable parts is harder in that respect and this has gone down.

The what initiative? "1b phones initiative" turns up exactly one result on Google -- this page.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/14/apple-ceo-tim-cook-speaks-at-goldman-sachs-technology-conference/

Maybe you need to stop shitting out high volumes of low quality pseudo-insightful posts on every Apple story and start actually thinking through what you're saying.

Maybe you should get an account and then comment on other posters.

Go ask these guys: http://www.macrumors.com/

The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation.

So? The F700 was released in December 2007, "many months" later...

The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens.

That's not being disputed. Apple claims that those designs would have never been successful in the market without the iPhone to copy from because there were a lot of challenges to overcome in order to make them work. Apple even used the Prada, a phone that came out before the iPhone and failed horribly, to demonstrate this. While designing a phone with a touchscreen is trivial, designing a phone with a touchscreen that behaves correctly is not. It was not until the iPhone that everybody finally understood how to properly design touchscreen phones and implement touch-friendly firmwares that don't require stylii for anything.

The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly).

They might have dropped it because of the builtin keyboard making it sufficiently different.

I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups

I think it's sad to not actually understand what the issue is.

Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.

Absolutely, but would it have been successful design without Apple setting an example? I guess not. There's a long way between wishful thinking like drawing a few drafts based on an untested concept and actually building a product that works while betting the company in the process.

The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation.
The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens.
The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly).
I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups
Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.

I came across the following article this morning that helped me identify some of the issues that Apple might have with Samsung:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/31/apples-opening-court-statement-focuses-on-samsungs-radical-shift-in-phone-design/

In the "top rated comments" section after the article (specifically the comment by user "troop231"), you will see a handful of pictures of Apple and Samsung creations side-by-side.

I'm not an expert in the legal aspects of the case at hand, but I found the comparisons presented to be illuminating.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/30/more-early-iphone-and-ipad-prototype-designs-surface-in-samsung-trial-documents/

>>>and so does the competition, which is selling products at the same price as Apple.

Not true.
See my signature [Bought an i7-equipped PC for $650. An equal-speced MacMini costs almost double that. :-o].

I'm curious what make/model you bought, or what parts and components you used if you built it yourself.

One of the appeals of the Mini (maybe not to you, though) is its small size. In this discussion they were having a hard time finding Mac mini-sized, fan-less PCs that weren't crippled with slower CPUs or graphics. Admittedly Apple cheated a bit by excluding a built-in optical drive.

According to MacRumors, Apple will provide an adapter.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/23/apple-to-provide-adapter-for-smaller-iphone-dock-connector/

Yes, I realize its a "rumor" site.

...and before we start frothing at the mouth over all the iPad-enabled equipment destined for landfill, there are equally credible rumors that Apple will be making an adapter.

As for why - well, they've managed to stick to the same physical connector for 10 years, which is pretty good going. Maybe it wasn't possible to add USB3 in a way that didn't break compatibility with existing docks. They probably don't need composite/component analog video now, either.

Plus since they just announced they've come up with a new version of it, it seems unlikely they'll switch to something different so soon.

That's not announced, that's a guess/rumour. No product announcement or press release has been made.

Plus since they just announced they've come up with a new version of it, it seems unlikely they'll switch to something different so soon.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1255588 Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.

Yeah i'm aware of that but doing a force delete of the executable and libraries is something you can do with internet explorer on Windows too, there's no difference between Safari and IE in terms of the ability the respective platforms offer to remove them.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1255588

Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.

Admittedly I did make a mistake. I should have said Microsoft not Windows. But the point still stands that Microsoft purposely ignore your choices to push their choice on you.

Instead of buying new hardware, spend a few minutes in Terminal and run Mt Lion on your unsupported Mac anyways: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325818

But Apple actually announced this back in early March, and as others have pointed out at least have a path to iCloud in place.

Told you!

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/03/ban-on-galaxy-nexus-u-s-sales-upheld-software-patch-to-circumvent-forthcoming/

Are you refuting that Flash drains battery, runs slow and eats up precious RAM on the phones that support it? How many Android owners actually like to use it when other options exist?

Have you actually used Flash on Android? it doesn't drain the battery, slow down the phone, or eat up RAM. If you visit a website with Flash embedded in it, the Flash element is drawn as a letter F. You have to tap on the F to actually load and play the Flash. Apple just tossed up those strawmen (which any competent coder could work around in 5 minutes) to avoid talking about the real reason they were prohibiting Flash.

OP is correct. Apple's decision not to support Flash was to prevent the distribution of apps which can run on iOS bypassing the App Store. They have a very clear policy on all apps in the App Store - No Code Interpreters. And Flash is a doozy of a code interpreter. The only code interpreters Apple allows (due to a recent policy change) are ones where you can't download code.

Now, this isn't a one-sided profit thing. Yes it lets them take a cut of any iOS program which you might sell. But it also helps them control and prevent the spread of malware on iOS.

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

Followed shortly thereafter by "Samsung goes out of business due to massive overcapacity." Followed closely by "Sharp stock up over 100% due to new contracts with Apple."

Here are before and after images of the marketing text.

Also, contrary to the summary, it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses, which is, admittedly, a trivial and silly distinction to make, but I like playing the pedant.

Actually, it makes several statements:
1: In big, bold type, the site declares regarding their brand of computer:

It doesn't get PC viruses.

So, unless your Mac is not a personal computer, it's obvious that is an untrue statement; even Mac-target virii are, technically, "PC viruses."

Below that heading, the site spells things out a bit more specifically:

A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers.

Ignoring the obvious FUD ("plaguing?" Bit hyperbolic, no?), that is, at first glance, not an untrue statement - until one takes into account the thousands upon thousands of Mac's that are, as we speak, running Microsoft Windows. By prefacing the statement with "a Mac," i.e. the hardware, as opposed to "OS X," they are (or were) indeed making a blatantly false statement about the security of their hardware.

The third relevant statement is found in the paragraph next to the image:

With virtually no effort on your part, OS X defends against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.

Since I've never actually used a Mac (Beyond installing OS X86 on a laptop or two), I can't personally evaluate that statement, but on the surface, it doesn't seem like it would be false. Of course, the catch is that what OS X does to protect you without your intervention isn't that much different than Windows turning on it's own firewall, or bugging me to install A/V software - Hell, they even give me a list to choose from!

Here are before and after images of the marketing text.

Also, contrary to the summary, it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses, which is, admittedly, a trivial and silly distinction to make, but I like playing the pedant.

Where do you get off calling MobileMe a massive failure?

Well, Steve Jobs called MobileMe and the MobileMe team a massive failure himself.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Having received a satisfactory answer, he continues, "So why the f*** doesn't it do that?"
Steve Jobs summoned the entire MobileMe team for a meeting at the company's on-campus Town Hall, accusing everyone of "tarnishing Apple's reputation." He told the members of the team they "should hate each other for having let each other down", and went on to name new executives on the spot to run the MobileMe team.

Source

AT&T has indicated they are following suit, while Sprint has not.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/verizon-introduces-share-everything-service-plan-for-up-to-ten-devices/

The plan is a boon if you have more than one device, and becomes better the more devices you have on the single plan, even with the increased data rates.

As a current Verizon customer, the new plan works for me *specifically* because I have more than one device. While I would be paying more if I just had a smartphone on the new plan, the inclusion of a tablet for $10 extra, pulling from the same data pool, more than offsets the cost of a separate plan for the tablet ($30 / month). It's not a huge savings, but it's notable in that I can now have multiple devices, plus tethering at no additional cost, instead of a separate plan for each device and extra for tethering, which would add up to more in the end.

I don't disagree with your idea regarding product differentiation, but I think that's simply a good excuse for cancelling a model that doesn't sell well. Note that the linked analysis was given back in April, and it correctly identified both the cancellation and the presence of a new model that has a different form factor than the current MacBook Pro. If his numbers really are accurate, there's no reason to bring it back as an ultra-high-end model later, especially considering the fact that the current retina model commands a premium over the previous models, rather than coming in at the same price point.

If you decide on Mac, it's probably worth waiting a few weeks - there will be a new MacBook Pro out soon.

A very useful page for non-geeks.

but before you do that... check out http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ because a new macbook is coming soon with retina display!!!

40%? Try 10% according to the 1Q12 reports.
They're not first. Not even second. http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/11/apple-holds-third-place-ranking-among-u-s-pc-manufacturers-in-1q-2012/

And this is in the US, where Apple's marketshare is abnormally high. They don't even make 5th place worlwide.

"you simply won't be able to run X11 apps on Mac OS X any more"

This is patently false. Apple is no longer supporting X11, but they are recommending that people install an open source X11 for OS X called XQuartz. So, you will be able to run X11 apps in Mountain Lion.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/17/apple-removes-x11-in-os-x-mountain-lion-shifts-support-to-open-source-xquartz/
http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki

It's a cafeteria, How can you run off at the mouth without doing a little research? eg http://www.mercurynews.com/cupertino/ci_20481367/apple-gets-green-light-new-21-468-square or http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/26/apple-building-new-cafeteria-in-cupertino-to-enhance-security-for-satellite-campus-workers/ Most reporters are reporting it as a cafeteria.

I'm sure the functionality will be added back in.

Airport Utility 6.0 follows the recent trend of Apple making all of their software neutered versions of iOS versions (Lion to a certain extent, iCal, Address Book, etc)--so the comments here http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/30/apple-releases-redesigned-ios-like-airport-utility-6-0-and-an-airport-base-station-bug-fix/. So, they went from a useful program with a standard interface (old version) to one with a pretty UI that lacks major features.

The trend has been for Apple to add MOST features back in at some point, so hopefully it continues. I can't imagine Airport Utility will stay this way forever.

I just keep an old binary around...

No, but there is a patent.

In the one corner Apple, in the other such winners as HTC, Motorolla, Nokia and Sony Ericsson. CEO's always get fired if they back the wrong horse, but he picked the one with the right odds.

Pre orders sold out less than 8 hours after its announcement. Just because a few tech geeks can't twist the hardware to perform all their desires doesn't mean it still isn't a popular consumer good with a much larger buying public. You can't please everyone, and Apple runs a business so they please the largest buying group first.

Yup. Hours after the announcement the shipping estimate for the Apple TV slipped from "Delivers on March 16" to "1-2 weeks".

All reports? Really? Take a look at the 9th bullet at that screenshot:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/07/ios-5-1-now-available-with-japanese-siri-camera-enhancements-and-more/

A quote from an engineer who used to work for AMD

What did happen is that management decided there SHOULD BE such cross-engineering ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style. This results in giving up a lot of performance, chip area, and efficiency. The reason DEC Alphas were always much faster than anything else is they designed each transistor by hand. Intel and AMD had always done so at least for the critical parts of the chip. That changed before I left - they started to rely on synthesis tools, automatic place and route tools, etc. I had been in charge of our design flow in the years before I left, and I had tested these tools by asking the companies who sold them to design blocks (adders, multipliers, etc.) using their tools. I let them take as long as they wanted. They always came back to me with designs that were 20% bigger, and 20% slower than our hand-crafted designs, and which suffered from electromigration and other problems.
That is now how AMD designs chips. I'm sure it will turn out well for them [/sarcasm]

source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9746191&postcount=619

more:
http://www.insideris.com/amd-spreads-propaganda-ex-employee-speaks-out/

Despite Apple's protestation that the iBooks Author EULA was misinterpreted

Apparently the summary's author hadn't heard that Apple responded to the complaints by changing the license so that it was clear they were not making the claims they had been accused of making. They didn't just "protest" and claim people misinterpreted the license. They corrected the problem. Clearly this was a case of Apple...

CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!
1) If you think Apple is evil, skip to paragraph A
2) If you think Apple is good, skip to paragraph B

PARAGRAPH A
Clearly this was a case of Apple engaging in some slick PR after getting caught red-handed. It's our job to stay vigilant, and open formats are the way to go since we can't trust Apple or their kind.

PARAGRAPH B
Clearly this was a case of Apple making an honest mistake or having an overzealous lawyer adding some boilerplate language that could be taken other than how it was intended. They've shown a willingness to correct these sorts of mistakes in the past, and we can trust them to do so again in the future.

I believe the actual reason is that the iPhone 4 is missing a key sensor that allows you to just hold the phone to your mouth and speak to Siri.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/iphone-4s-incorporates-revamped-ir-sensor-for-siris-raise-to-speak-feature/

You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't.

You did not say "run OS X virtually" or any such wording, you said How about virtualization? Let's now look at virtualizing OSX, Google is your friend...

• How to Virtualize OS X Lion on Windows
• How to Run Mac OS X in VirtualBox on Windows
• How To Run Leopard (Retail) in VMware Fusion - Virtualize OSX on your Mac
• [Updated] Virtualize OS X Lion 10.7 Windows 7
• OS X Lion Allows Running Multiple Copies on the Same Machine (Virtualization)

That's 5 of Google's more than 150,00 results. Are you again going to say I didn't understand what you meant?

You apparently didn't bother to *read* any of the links you gave, otherwise you'd find out that all of them are illegal methods as they are violations of the EULA, and your last link even explains why they are illegal. Again, you can't virtualize OS X client prior to Lion at all, you can virtualize OS X Server and OS X Lion client, but only if you are running on OS X as a host OS, ie not VMWare ESX or Citrix XenServer, or Microsoft Hyper-V, or any other bare-metal hypervisor, in other words, a useless non-feature.

In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out.

Just like you didn't spend the fives seconds to Google virtualize OSX. You didn't bother doing what you accuse me of not doing, Google terminal services osx. When I just did Google suggested "terminal services osx" and "terminal services osx client". I'm sure you're competent enough to look at some of the results yourself, if not I see no reason to continue.

Falcon

Again, you clearly didn't bother to give even a cursory glance at the results. Half of them are forum posts asking if OS X will ever have the ability to host terminal services (because it doesn't at the moment), and the other half are TS *clients* for accessing *Windows* terminal servers. The one relevent link, iRAPP, explicitly says that in order to conform to Apple's EULAs, they only allow multiple connections to OS X Server, not Client, which misses the entire point of having terminal services in the first place, and again makes it nothing more than VNC with a few more bells and

You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't.

You did not say "run OS X virtually" or any such wording, you said How about virtualization? Let's now look at virtualizing OSX, Google is your friend...

• How to Virtualize OS X Lion on Windows
• How to Run Mac OS X in VirtualBox on Windows
• How To Run Leopard (Retail) in VMware Fusion - Virtualize OSX on your Mac
• [Updated] Virtualize OS X Lion 10.7 Windows 7
• OS X Lion Allows Running Multiple Copies on the Same Machine (Virtualization)

That's 5 of Google's more than 150,00 results. Are you again going to say I didn't understand what you meant?

In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out.

Just like you didn't spend the fives seconds to Google virtualize OSX. You didn't bother doing what you accuse me of not doing, Google terminal services osx. When I just did Google suggested "terminal services osx" and "terminal services osx client". I'm sure you're competent enough to look at some of the results yourself, if not I see no reason to continue.

Falcon

I think Apple's of the mindset that as long as they're expecting developers to build on Macs for iPhone and iPad, as well as use Lightroom/FinalCut/etc. in production environments, there's a need for the Mac Pro.

Have you read any comments forums about Final Cut Pro X? Just a couple of days ago I read some, they almost all agreed to properly run Final Cut Pro X the current Mac Pro were lacking. On Final Cut Pro X’s professional exodus. Can Mini run Photoshop CS5 and Final Cut Pro? More: Apple’s Just A Twitch Away From Killing The Mac Pro Line Forever.

Falcon

See this pie chart for the breakdown of profit, according to Apple's own numbers:

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/appleq112bottomchart.jpg

The iTunes store is a very small piece of the puzzle.

The iPhone still has a hefty market share - which is important for Apple because they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions.

I don't think it invalidates any of your other points, but it looks like iTunes (apps, music, and video) brought in about 1/10 the money as did sales of iPhones in the last quarter, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from iPad sales, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from CPU sales and about the same amount as brought in by iPod sales. My rough estimates from the following graph give about 2.5 billion for iTunes, 2.5 for iPod, 7.5 for CPU, 7.5 for iPad, 25 billion for iPhone.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/24/apple-reports-best-quarter-ever-in-q1-2012-13-06-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/

They seem to have had a total of 46 billion of total revenue, and 13 billion in net profit. Even if all of the 2.5 billion of iTunes was 100% profit (ie no costs associated with it), that is still only about 1/5th of their total net income. The iPhone would need to have profit rates of less than 10% to get its net profit to be about equal to this. That doesn't sound like "they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions".

Apple is making some pretty big bucks in their content sales businesses, but they still seem to be making the lion's share of their money in the hardware sales business.

Well when you consider that they keep two thirds of their profits/cash offshore, it's pretty easy to say that they don't pay as much as they should.

Take a look at this chart.

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/appleq112topchart.jpg

The orange strip is revenue from downloads. Sure Apple makes money from them, but it's dwarfed by the money they make from hardware.

"Its" for you grammar nazis. I blame autocorrect. I'm posting from an iPhone.

Here's the source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1310926

They don't want to own your books, just their file format.

While I agree with your comments about what Apple wants, the issue is over the line in the EULA "if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple." That certainly appears to be an exclusive distribution license, which needs to be in writing under the Copyright Act to be valid.

That said, if you subsequently distributed it elsewhere without signing anything, you probably wouldn't be liable for copyright infringement of the work you created, as the transfer was invalid. However, you would be in breach of the software license, so you would have to delete the iBook software from your machine, or else you would be liable for copyright infringement of their software.

"Its" for you grammar nazis. I blame autocorrect. I'm posting from an iPhone.

Here's the source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1310926

They don't want to own your books, just their file format.