Slashdot Mirror

Umm. What is so great about a very large smart phone that can not make a phone call?

Um, because it isn't a very large smart phone? For example, can you run something as sophisticated as Keynote, Pages, or Numbers on any phone, large or small?

I believe that I covered that fact that the Lady looks good and dresses well. That I believe is what all the fanboys are paying for. Right?

So, every single person who purchases an iPad is a "fanboy"? I think you need to up your meds.

You already know Apple is all about the looks and the UI. They do not innovate. They build what has been built before, dumb it down so the stupid can be as useful as the capable then put forth the greatest marketing machine ever built to sell it.

Really? I guess there was no innovation in this, or this, or this, or this, or this. Why are there no examples of those hardware and software products PRIOR to Apple releasing them?. And why oh why do they keep winning industry awards year after year?

Are all those people fanboys, too?

Have fun fuming over this post and try not to spit out your "Half-Caf, No Foam, Soy Latte".

Sorry to disappoint you; but I'm strictly a Folgers/Walmart Half&Half/Splenda (I'm diabetic) sorta guy. Only been in a Starbucks once in my entire life. Don't even get the fake cappuccino at the fast food joints.

Well, the article is around a year old, but at that time they had ~70% of the mp3 player market share.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_has_723_percent_of_mp3_player_market_in_february/

My guess is that it's probably risen a bit in the past year, too.

But mostly it's the UI. It's difficult to explain why if you haven't used one for a few days, but the iPod UI, to use a cliche, just works. Other players just seem clunky and awkward by comparison.

Someone is bound to mention the Creative lawsuit at some point. Let's just say, though, that wherever that classic iPod UI came from, many players now use something similar. Some of them (Creative's current players and the iRiver Clix come right to mind) even get great reviews for their UIs.

And there's the other thing. Notice also how the Touch and Classic/Nano have different UIs, but people still talk about the great "iPod UI", as if there were only one of them. See, I think they're promoting the iPod's UI out of habit, without really thinking things through too much. _Which_ iPod UI is so great? A little "why" would be nice too -- familiarity and quality are easy to confuse.

Apple settled with Xerox in that the Macintosh and Macintosh OSX violated the IP of the Xerox Alto system developed in the 1970's, way before the Macintosh was made.

Eventually they agreed to settle and license the Xerox technology from the company that holds it.

In 2002, Apple made it up to 5th place in servers with a 1.5% US market share. (Outside the US, zilch.)

By 2005, they were in 10th place with an 0.5% worldwide market share. (Article title: "Apple gaining momentum in server market". Maybe 2004 was worse.)

read all about it here.

As far as I'm aware, Greenpeace had little to do with this story, more like grassroot protesters and Apple's own shareholders, who rightly said Dell and HP had both better policies. Apple did appear with a bad score in a Greenpeace report, but that's one voice amongst many.

Recycling is important, Apple is flush with cash and rides on the image of a modern, innovative, user-friendly company. It should be recycling more, but doesn't. In particular, currently its recycling program is limited to the continental US. I think this is not good enough. Fortunately, other companies have much better policies, whose goal is to become global.

It's interesting so watch what happens when reality intrudes harshly on the image Apple wants to give of itself.

I have been working on Mac's for over 10 years (including new Intel based), and I have never seen pink and green vertical lines on the screen fixedby setting the startup disk. I have gotten blank white screens, black screens, screens with question marks, but never pink and green lines. I have the feeling there was more to this then booting off the CD and setting your startup disk back to the hard disk.

Well if you've never seen it then it mustn't be true. /rollseyes

Read this link. It happened to my brother's Macbook and was fixed by setting the Startup Disk.

Because Apple uses OpenGL as the basis of the graphics plumbing on their OS, their support for OpenGL is world class. The very issues discussed above about getting OpenGL working well with X have come up and been solved on MacOSX. The very features Microsoft is trying to shoe horn into Vista (transparent windows, beautiful dynamic effects, etc) have been done with OpenGL on MacOSX.

One example : http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/appl e_files_method_and_apparatus_for_frame_buffer_mana gement_patent_applica

but only $29? That is one seriously low price. Wow, what happened, are they subsidizing this one or something?

Based on this I assume what we have here is an off-the-shelf wireless mouse circuit. When you're running it's doing "click click click click click", and the iPod end might even be the USB connector for the mouse. So, $29 is in the ballpark for a COTS wireless mouse, plus you don't have to build any of the rest of the mouse other than the left-click button. Somebody gets the "elegant, simple" award.

The present invention is an apparatus and method for rotating the display orientation of a captured image. The apparatus of the present invention preferably comprises an image sensor, an orientation sensor, a memory and a processing unit. The image sensor is used for capturing image data. The orientation sensor is coupled to the image sensor, and is used for generating a portrait signal if the image sensor is positioned in a portrait orientation relative to the object. The memory, has an auto-rotate unit comprising program instructions for transforming the captured image data into rotated image data in response to the portrait signal. The processing unit, is used for executing program instructions stored in the memory, and is coupled to the image sensor, the orientation sensor and the memory. read more

Apple and innovation?

Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forward looking company. They claim Apple invented most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" or "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvement in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.

Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licensing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where developed on the PC market.

The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple invented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple invented none of those products.

A nice place for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totally mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf parts licensed from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.

It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer interesting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy Mac OS->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogenous environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 solution.

Conclusion:
All things considered, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping between CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed into nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. O

Apple and innovation?

Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forward looking company. They claim Apple invented most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" or "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvement in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.

Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licensing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where developed on the PC market.

The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple invented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple invented none of those products.

A nice place for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totally mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf parts licensed from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.

It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer interesting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy Mac OS->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogenous environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 solution.

Conclusion:
All things considered, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping between CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed into nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. O

Apple and innovation?

Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forward looking company. They claim Apple invented most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" or "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvement in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.

Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licensing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where developed on the PC market.

The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple invented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple invented none of those products.

A nice place for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totally mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf parts licensed from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.

It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer interesting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy Mac OS->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogenous environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 solution.

Conclusion:
All things considered, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping between CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed into nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the

Apple and innovation?

Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forward looking company. They claim Apple invented most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" or "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvement in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.

Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licensing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where developed on the PC market.

The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple invented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple invented none of those products.

A nice place for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totally mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf parts licensed from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.

It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer interesting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy Mac OS->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogenous environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 solution.

Conclusion:
All things considered, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping between CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed into nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. O

with the evolution of power (which creates heat) infused into them

And all this time people were wondering why they could never procreate.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/appl e_files_patent_system_and_method_for_creating_tamp er_resistant_code/ Have a look at this it covers the securing of the Mac OS to Hardware.

Fine by me. There are lots of players out there who do see fit to cater to my needs.

Actually they seem to be going out of business doing so.

"D&M Holdings will exit the mass-market portable digital audio player business, currently marketed under the Rio brand, by Sept. 30."
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/6963 /

Clearly, it does.

Between the 83 occurences of "x86" in Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines and the x86 chip architecture in the Development Transition Kits, how could it not be an x86 chip?

Anyway, I thought the speculation was over now that Intel has revealed its roadmap.

For future iPods, they could make the screen larger and offer a separate stylus if the screens were touch sensitive
Or they could make an iPod with a square touchpad, which seems quite plausible if they plan on doing something like this.

for those of you who haven't read any of the musings over at http://www.macsimumnews.com/, you should realise that this is one of those 'oh yeah, i should have seen _that_ coming shouldn't i?' things.

the folks over at macsimum news seem to think that apple is poised to be at the center of the media/entertainment(http://www.macsimumnews.com/in dex.php/search/results/1e6ceff0d8b3e098d0784ca4fae c710e// world when HD/movies/etc over-IP happens.

besides, why wouldn't apple want to use a media distribution channel they've already got tons of experience using and serving for (how)many years?

for those of you who haven't read any of the musings over at http://www.macsimumnews.com/, you should realise that this is one of those 'oh yeah, i should have seen _that_ coming shouldn't i?' things.

the folks over at macsimum news seem to think that apple is poised to be at the center of the media/entertainment(http://www.macsimumnews.com/in dex.php/search/results/1e6ceff0d8b3e098d0784ca4fae c710e// world when HD/movies/etc over-IP happens.

besides, why wouldn't apple want to use a media distribution channel they've already got tons of experience using and serving for (how)many years?

• Apple's extended experience with High Traffic in Video Downloads from their Quicktime Trailer Site(I would love to see us Slashdot them, everyone watch "The Cars" trailer at 12 am CST today)
  
• Steve Job's dedication that "this year will be the year of HD"...why is that Stevey? if I still don't have my HD *Television*?
  
• Sony's distaste for Microsoft
  
• and more ...
  

Microsoft proably has the cash to muscle out (or buy out) a lot of start ups in this area, but It wouldn't suprise me to see someone like apple, or maybe someone less consumer oriented like cisco stand up to microsoft and not let them take the market without a fight.