Slashdot Mirror

Uh, I hate to say it, but Jobs said at the keynote today that 10.3 will cost $129. (See MacCentral's coverage, among others.)

As you alluded to, Apple would probably have called Jaguar 10.5 and Panther 11.0 if it weren't for the marketing pain of OS XI--they want to put OS 11 off as long as they can. However, both 10.2 and 10.3 are major upgrades that Apple felt were worth charging the upgrade price for. Apple didn't charge for 10.1 because, by their own admission, 10.0 wasn't really ready for prime time (although I have been using OS X full time since the public beta), so Apple thought it fair not to charge early adopters to get the first ready-for-prime-time release of OS X.*

I happen to think that both 10.2 and 10.3 are worth the upgrade fee and think that it is perfectly fair for Apple to charge for them, but that point is definitely open to debate. That said, I am a student, so it will (most likely) only cost me $70. :)

*Fair is, of course, a relative term--one could look at it this way: Apple presumably thought that a lot of their customers would think it unfair if they charged for 10.1, so they thought the long term costs of charging more than a $20 distribution cost would be more harmful than the lost revenue would be helpful.

Steve Jobs just confirmed at the WWDC Keynote that Apple systems with the PPC970 are a reality! No word yet on availability.

The leak on the Apple store website was true, and Jobs just admitted it in the process of announcing the new G5. Check MacCentral for live updates on the keynote.

The PPC970 wit its Power4 core, clocked at 1.6GHz completely trashes a 3GHz P4. Faster bus, faster integer, and completely outclasses the P4 for FPU and SIMD.

Yawn.

The IBM PPC 970 1.8GHz Specint 2000 score quoted at Microprocessor Forum last year was 937 (source)
The current 3.0GHz P4 with Canterwood chipset already sports a Specint 2000 score of 1164 (source)

Wow...20% slower.
As for floating point, the ratio is even worse.

Move along...nothing to see here...

Last time I looked, they had over 1% of the market, so, so much for saying IE has 99%.

Quote: "Nope, they will not create another version of Office."

Except that MS already have said that they will create another Mac version of Office as it is extremely profitable. Look at this article over at MacCentral. To quote the MS guy in the article:

"We are working diligently on the next version of Office -- these [IE and Office] are not connected in any way. Office is still intact and going strong -- there are no plans to stop development on Office for Mac even after the next version is released."

Damn, I submitted much the same yesterday, but probably a bit too late. Next time. Thereâ(TM)s a complementary piece at MacCentral. Also, thereâ(TM)s a bit of discussion at the MacNN board, most of which centers around Safari being able to seamlessly spoof IE 5 and future versions in using bank sites, online purchase forms, etc that are putatively restricted to IE. In any case, given that IE was the most bloated and slow browser available for OS X, this is no big surprise after the release of Safari.

Nonetheless in the MacCentral story, Microsoft does state âoeMicrosoft and the MacBU continue to be committed to the Mac platform. We are excited about the new versions of products coming out like Office, Virtual PC, Messenger and MSN for Mac OS X. Our commitment hasn't wavered, it's just a matter of doing what's right to meet customer needs.â

Whoopie, MSN â¦

Damn, I submitted much the same yesterday, but probably a bit too late. Next time. Thereâ(TM)s a complementary piece at MacCentral. Also, thereâ(TM)s a bit of discussion at the MacNN board, most of which centers around Safari being able to seamlessly spoof IE 5 and future versions in using bank sites, online purchase forms, etc that are putatively restricted to IE. In any case, given that IE was the most bloated and slow browser available for OS X, this is no big surprise after the release of Safari.

Nonetheless in the MacCentral story, Microsoft does state âoeMicrosoft and the MacBU continue to be committed to the Mac platform. We are excited about the new versions of products coming out like Office, Virtual PC, Messenger and MSN for Mac OS X. Our commitment hasn't wavered, it's just a matter of doing what's right to meet customer needs.â

Whoopie, MSN â¦

Good points. The word I heard on the rumor mill was that Jobs was really pushing hard on the 64-bit 10.3 OS as well as the XServe, in order to migrate his other CEO gig - Pixar - to use XServes instead of the Racksaver Intel/Linux boxen.

Here's the PR on the SGI-to-Racksaver migration:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/02/09/pix ar/

I think your list is totally correct, I just think Jobs might be looking to finish your #6 closer to the top of that list. In any event, its great to hear that the 970 is finally coming into production, bringing the release dates closer still...

This story kind of explains the speed thing. The actual throughput speed has not changed at all since 802.11g first came out.

Apple has stated that they will be releasing a firmware soon to update to the official spec. I would assume that other vendors would be following suit.

Corel was apparently looking for a buyer for Bryce. How this buyout will affect things, who knows. But I'm not going to get my hopes up for Bryce to ever run on the Mac again.

But, we still have Vue. And Eric Wenger, the original creator of Bryce, posted on the U&I forums that he is working on a new landscape creator. Demo images

Indeed, the Pro mice play up on any highly reflective surface. The original Macworld review for the mouse points this out.

I guess thats when you fall back to a traditional mousepad - I use one anyway, because the desk I work at is caked in all kinds of crap ( used to be a cooking / dining table ), and I don't want it lifting off and attaching to the mouse.

Because the amount of movement required to steer the mouse is not very great with the sensitivity turned up ( I think the mouse itself is 400dpi ), the pad doesn't have to be very big. I use a pad of post-it notes - this also means I have a ready supply of new mousepads underneath the current one. ;-)

Umm... if your friend can get his voicemail into MP3 format, then an Apple iPod has been able to play it for nearly two years...

Likely, if you can get it into text, mp3, or aac, the Apple iPod will be able to play, display, or present the data to you. For example, using text to speech the iPod can grab newsfeed headlines. Using QuickSpeech you can similarly turn any text into an MP3 the iPod can play... unread emails from prospective employees? Messages from your dad? Intrusion alerts from your web server mailed to your computer?

Lots of fun stuff :)

The point being that the Neuros isn't the only toy on the block that can do this stuff.

Oh, and the FM transmitter stuff? Griffin iTrip, since you're already willing to live with a backpack and 9 oz of weight. Still lighter, still more intuitive, and still more portable :D

The ipod has a 3rd party add-on that does something similar - but having it built in would be a plus.

Check out an article about it here

The again - I'm still ranting about the battery issue ;)

802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com May 23, 2003 10:10 pm ET

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE), the group responsible for setting standards in the networking industry, approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs. The standard was approved by the IEEE on May 15, but will not be made publicly available until members of the IEEE 802.11 working group ratify it next month.

Recent published reports that the final standard for 802.11g will be throttled down to 20Mbit/sec aren't an indication of any actual change to the spec, according to Apple's Vice President of Software, Mike Bell.

Bell said the spec has not been throttled back at all, and explains using the familiar 802.11b specification.

"802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)"

Although internal tests have shown slightly higher data rates, the actual data rate for 802.11g will be approximately 20Mbit/sec, which is 4 to 5 times higher than 802.11b. Bell said the data rate has always been around 20Mbit/sec and hasn't changed in the final draft standard.

Apple chose 802.11g because of its backward compatibility with 802.11b devices. Many of Apple's own customers in business, education and in the home use the original AirPort for their wireless Internet access, as well as the many wireless HotSpots throughout the United States that use 802.11b.

If you own an 802.11g Base Station and plan to allow 802.11b devices on your network, the changes in the final specification will actually be better for you, according to Apple.

"The only change of any substance is that options were put in place so that if you want to allow legacy 'b' clients on your network, they will co-exist better with 'g' clients," said Bell. "In fact, your throughput is probably better and smoother now than what it was before. There is absolutely no difference in the data rate -- it is still 54Mbit/sec."

Apple has maintained since its release that AirPort Extreme products would follow the final specifications agreed on by the IEEE and Apple's Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, said on Friday that commitment has not changed.

"We applaud the changes they have made in the final specification," said Joswiak. "As we always said, there is nothing of significance technically that we can't put out in a software update. We expect to have an update available in the future for the final specification."

Apple was one of the first companies to ship a wireless product based on the new 802.11g standard when they announced AirPort Extreme at Macworld Expo in San Francisco in January. Joswiak said Apple picked 802.11g because it was the best choice for Apple's customers.

"We could have chosen any standard we wanted; we had no obligations that would make us select 'g' over 'a' except it was a better solution for our customers," said Joswiak. "We feel really good about out decision, but unfortunately there are some folks out there that are making a last ditch effort to try to cause confusion in the market and that's really unfortunate."

802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com May 23, 2003 10:10 pm ET

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE), the group responsible for setting standards in the networking industry, approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs. The standard was approved by the IEEE on May 15, but will not be made publicly available until members of the IEEE 802.11 working group ratify it next month.

Recent published reports that the final standard for 802.11g will be throttled down to 20Mbit/sec aren't an indication of any actual change to the spec, according to Apple's Vice President of Software, Mike Bell.

Bell said the spec has not been throttled back at all, and explains using the familiar 802.11b specification.

"802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)"

Although internal tests have shown slightly higher data rates, the actual data rate for 802.11g will be approximately 20Mbit/sec, which is 4 to 5 times higher than 802.11b. Bell said the data rate has always been around 20Mbit/sec and hasn't changed in the final draft standard.

Apple chose 802.11g because of its backward compatibility with 802.11b devices. Many of Apple's own customers in business, education and in the home use the original AirPort for their wireless Internet access, as well as the many wireless HotSpots throughout the United States that use 802.11b.

If you own an 802.11g Base Station and plan to allow 802.11b devices on your network, the changes in the final specification will actually be better for you, according to Apple.

"The only change of any substance is that options were put in place so that if you want to allow legacy 'b' clients on your network, they will co-exist better with 'g' clients," said Bell. "In fact, your throughput is probably better and smoother now than what it was before. There is absolutely no difference in the data rate -- it is still 54Mbit/sec."

Apple has maintained since its release that AirPort Extreme products would follow the final specifications agreed on by the IEEE and Apple's Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, said on Friday that commitment has not changed.

"We applaud the changes they have made in the final specification," said Joswiak. "As we always said, there is nothing of significance technically that we can't put out in a software update. We expect to have an update available in the future for the final specification."

Apple was one of the first companies to ship a wireless product based on the new 802.11g standard when they announced AirPort Extreme at Macworld Expo in San Francisco in January. Joswiak said Apple picked 802.11g because it was the best choice for Apple's customers.

"We could have chosen any standard we wanted; we had no obligations that would make us select 'g' over 'a' except it was a better solution for our customers," said Joswiak. "We feel really good about out decision, but unfortunately there are some folks out there that are making a last ditch effort to try to cause confusion in the market and that's really unfortunate."

I keep hoping that some well-run online song-for-song "rights buying" project comes up...I personally would pay a moderate amount for downloadable music, especially on a song-by-song basis.

Jesus, nobody told you? The Windows version will be out by year's end. And Roxio is planning a clone under a familiar name. Probably others will follow. It's a race to Windows with this model.

Come on - it was a joke. The real reason is to pad out the distance between dupes and M$ bashing articles.

;)

=tkk

Firewireless has been around a while. It even has DRM.

I don't expect to see this anytime soon...
Why would you? We've only been waiting several years already.

So much for being an 'early adopter'.

Specifically, the article mentions that ~2GB worth of Perl scripts make the configuration work. I doubt that the iPod is doing any real work (other than upping the "cool" factor).

CC

This just in: That link will most likely never, ever, ever not return a four-oh-four.

This link will work better... ;)

This just in, it will most likely never ever ever run on a Mac. ;)

I'm not sure if they've made them for the non-15" PB's yet, but I _HIGHLY_ recommend grabbing yourself one of those aftermarket Ti Handles (as seen here).

My whole development team has 15" PB's and they "suffer" from heat issues (no wobbly stuff reported) but that has all but disappeared since using the handles. (It gets the laptop up off table allowing for a bit more cooling).

Now the fan only kicks in when doing a monster Fink compile for an hour or three.

"Lossless" means relative to CD quality, because that is the best you can do right now. I'll bet that Apple didn't use the master DATs for encoding their shitty AAC tracks. They probably just ripped the CDs.

Actually, Apple is claiming some of the tracks offered will actually sound better than the CD versions. For them to make that claim, I can only assume at least some of the music files aren't being ripped from CDs, but from the source elements.

Will any of them actually sound better? I guess we'll find out...

Of course, there will definitely be audiophiles who aren't satisfied with the sound quality, but that's true of audiophiles when discussing any format (vinyl, CD, whatever). I'm guessing the average sound quality will be comparable to what one would get from the physical CD releases, which if the case would satisfy the ears of the overwhelming majority of listeners. We'll see, though...

According to MacCentral's coverage, Jobs said Windows will be supported by the end of the year. So does this imply that Apple will make iTunes for Windows, or does it mean that Music Match (or some other product) will be upgrade by its developer to support the music store or that there will be an web page version by the end of year? Who knows.

This article at MacCentral brought me to a conclusion:

The iPod may turn out to be the most useful piece of computer hardware ANY computer or electronic hardware company has ever developed.

That is a very general, seeming overly biased, statement coming from an Apple Computer Consultant; I'm sure.

Apple created a wonder in ease of use and portability with the iPod. Until the iPod was intrduced not only were Creative and Archos Jukebox series bulky, but 10, 15, and 20 gigs was impossibly slow to load to download to the units. They were also about as easy as a car stereo Mp3 player to navigate. Apple came out with a unit that essentially put a miniature iTunes (one of the easiest, most elegant MP3 players on any platform) on the iPod, made it a hard drive to boot, but added a firewire interface. This allowed the full 5, 10, and 20 gig transfer in minutes rather than the 3.3 hours it would take for the 20 gigs through USB.

The iPod is becoming a status symbol. Shaq uses one and CONSTANTLY talks about his in interviews. He made everyone on the team purchase one before they went to the playoffs last year.

The iPod is also versatile beyond it's intended uses:

iPod as a remote control The beauty linked here was ORIGINALLY planned for the iPod and is being redeveloped now

iPod as a mouse

iPod with FM radio and here

iPod as a gameboy and game controller

Some of the coolest accesories have popped up for the iPod too. Some are linked here. Check out the transpod and of course the cool iTrip and iFM availible from Griffin.

Here are two great resources for iPod info:

http://www.ipodlounge.com

http://www.ipodhacks.com

I have already seen future incarnations and "in development" iPods. Apple is planning for it to change the future direction of the company!

To answer a question common in the forums, there WILL be an update to allow 10 and 20 gig rev 2 iPods to work, it will be released sometime next month.

So in your opinion, any company that does not port product X to system Y, is "persistently refusing to release a Y version of product X"...? Strange way of looking at free will and business decisions. Using that definition of "persistent refusal" (which, apparently, means the same as "did not")

It seems that English isn't your first language, so I can understand if this is hard for you. But "did not" is an excellent synonym for refuse. Maybe you're getting into a long argument based on misunderstanding a verb.

Here, I'll give you an example:

"Rui, will you please send me $80?"

Are you going to do it? If not, then you just refused. Now, if I repeat the question one thousand times over three years (as non-Windows gamers did to Valve), you will "persistently refuse". That's exactly what it means. No more, no less.

Just because I didn't give you a 10 point business-plan for how you'll profit by funding my new DVD player doesn't change the fact that you "refused".

Half-Life was released in 1997.

And in 1998, 1999... every year since then. "Platinum Edition", "Game of the Year Edition", "Plutonium Pack", "TFC Edition", "Collector's Edition", "Counterstrike Edition". "OPFOR". "Blueshift". The list goes on and on.

There was a continual stream of releases, they could (and did) add major features to any one of them.

I'm sick of this attitude of certain Linux users

Why did you decide this is about Linux? I mentioned Mac first, and Macintosh support is something Valve announced, but never followed through on. (Note the optimistic comment in there: "things should go much faster since I'll be working with id's Quake engine code which has already been ported to everything in existence." Code licensed from Id software is not the problem!). You seem to think that "refusal" is only possible after performing a business case study. Well, I doubt that press releases like that were sent out without a bean-counter crunching the numbers first.

I never thought Linux was a profitable gaming platform, although it is interesting that all of the other major FPS (Quake3, UT2003, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Medal of Honor) have released native Linux versions. Maybe those publishers think there's a market emerging- are they all wrong, but Valve was right?

(The answer to that question is unknowable, and irrelevant to the stupid argument about whether or not Valve "refused")

The "polite" explanation

The background explanation.

"He said getting rid of stock, you nincompoop, not stopping selling. "

Wrong.

"Dell Computer Corp. confirmed for MacCentral today that the company has stopped selling Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod MP3 player. Dell is discontinuing sales of the iPod because of changes Apple wants to implement in the reseller agreement between the two companies."

Actually, Dell just re-signed their retail contract with Apple, so unless they're gonna start selling iMacs, I imagine Dell will be selling iPods again soon.

and b)the first actual images of DIII were presented at a Mac-expo.

*COUGH*Halo*COUGH*

Sorry, seem to have something caught in my throat...

FireWire tops out at 3.2Gbps.

There are already codecs for uncompressed digital video.

I remember the same video - it was around 1989 or so. There was one guy sitting on a park bench with a newspaper, he pressed it to the flat screen it then OCRed it and began to help him to learn to read it, prompting him as he read it out aloud.

Sculley believed passionately about this. There is a paper he wrote about the Knowledge Navigator here

So the Knowledge Navigator was a real mix of technologies. But ultimately such video productions and thought experiments were all about developing the Apple brand. I saw the video at an Apple tech show in Auckland NZ and that was preaching to the converted - but Sculley saw this brand development as crucial. Wired has a great article about Apple the brand. Sculley developed Apple into one of the most recognised brands in the world.... and Apple are still living on his legacy.

But Sculley also viewed the idea of this sort of technology, and especially Newton, as the future. I recall that he went on after leaving Apple to work with a company developing a wireless device for the Newton. He is still a believer in this vision - this article from 2000 suggests a merger with 3Com - Palm and Apple = Newton redux = iPalm?

Well, there was a hint.

Jobs: OS 9 is Dead, Long Live OS X

Had the original poster READ the article he was posting about rather than skimmed, he would have seen that the test pitted top of the line consumer grade X-86 hardware against top of the line Dual G4 Mac hardware... to quote the article:

"The showdown pitted a single-processor Dell 3.06GHz Pentium 4 and a 1.25GHz dual-processor Power Mac G4 (the fastest Mac then available). The contest compared renderings of files created in Adobe After Effects, Illustrator and Photoshop software." Source:

Incidentally, a single processor P4 machine is not by any means top of the line PC hardware. Perhaps they are too embarrassed to show what would happen with top of the line X-86 hardware (non-server class, lets stick to workstation vs. workstation hardware)... A Dual Intel Xeon processor (Xeons are currently running at a peak of 3.06 Ghz) box with a workstation class graphics accelerator instead of the gaming graphics cards you can get for the mac (GeForce 4 IS a gaming graphics card!... THIS is a workstation graphics card)... I betcha price is comparable at that level of X-86 hardware.

Not to mention, to add insult to injury for Apple, the single processor Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz PC (which I'm sure retailed for $1000 - $2000 USD less than the Apple box) whipped the Power Mac in EVERY category of the comparison. I'm sure Apple's own proprietary "equivalent" software runs faster on MacOS than the Adobe software. Perhaps they should open some of the tricks they are hiding to accomplish that to Adobe, one of the companies that made Apple what it is today!

Oh yeah, and one day, if Apple has the balls, they should compare top PC-Workstation hardware to top Mac-Workstation hardware. To make it fair (and cut the whining), limit the PC-Workstation to the retail price of a top of the line Mac-Workstation (that is currently $3,799 without a monitor!)... then compare those machines and see the embarrasing truth (well, embarrasing to Apple, who claims that the "turbocharged Power Mac rips through digital video and 3D projects faster than Pentiums can say 'uncle.' " Source:)

I wish Apple would move to X86... if they can convince people of that much BS and stir up what can only be called religious Mac worship, they would probably do great (and make much more profit) if they switch OSX to X86 and built the same PowerMacs on X86 hardware... maybe the Opteron, who knows :) They've got enough of a name where they could just pull it off and, aesthetically speaking, they are ahead of the X86 world, for now. Plus, being *nix based now, it should be a simpler move than it would have been before!

It's awesome we're even still talking about Mozilla considering the doom and gloom that was spewed because it didn't result in an instant competitor to IE.

Mozilla isn't perfect, but we're all better off living in world with a valid browser alternative.

It's awesome we're even still talking about Mozilla considering the doom and gloom that was spewed because it didn't result in an instant competitor to IE.

Mozilla isn't perfect, but we're all better off living in world with a valid browser alternative.

Not a great review, but maybe 2003 addresses some of the concerns raised here.

:-)

Today Apple responds to Adobe's claims. They are basically blaming poor application performance esp. when compared to FC Pro.

Clearstatic

computers have a lifesan of 1-7 years with most new computers being bought in the span of 2-4 years. Computer sales have been flat since 1999. Mac sales have been flat for 10 years.

Take a look at this chart
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0007/18.share. shtml

It details the sales per platform of every major platform in the last 20 or so year (yes even stuff like amiga and commodore 64).

Mac sales have been flat for at least 10 years. The mac market should be facing a steady state and they could maintain their sales if they only sold to their user base (since these guys must have bought another computer in the last 10 year). It implies that for every persone switching to the mac there is one switching away. Perliminairy number indicate that mac sales are again flat for this year. The split betweem people who have bought a mac before and people who are new to the platform (as far as iMacs anyway) was ~65 old 45% new... That's quite a chunk of people to be loosing... Sales of the towers have been suffering (I would expect that this is because the towers are sold to pre-press places which should be part of the installed base)..

In any case, this is all secondairy compared to Apple's sharply dropping numbers in its established markets like education and pre-press. This is the real killer 'cause if you don't have a established market niche you are 10% of nothing.. Actually Apple's marketshare is at 5% these days :(...

NOTE: I'm not trying to be a doom and gloom guy. I am really worried about the survival of the platform. Not only because it is actually very nice (I have a mac Towers these days as well as the PC), but because Microsoft with a monopoly does not do anything. Look at microsoft exploder. They've done bascially nothing with it since version 5. Mozilla has blown past it. (Well, in my opinion anyway)..

That's just false information ... Apple has a 17% margin on the iMac and 28-33% overall for all combined sales - that is DOUBLE the next highest margin which is Dell. They also have the lowest inventory in the industry too. (some weeks are better than others due to rumor of new machines coming out) Again only Dell has better channel management. While Dell seems to be the darling here, they also beat out Apple in education sales now, but Apple has sold 45,000 iBooks into education over the last three quarters and STILL owns a 34% total share of all educational computer purchases. I won't go into the iPod and the closest competitor going out of business. Sonic Blue Rio Maker Bankruptcy But, I will point out that the iPod has an 11% margin, the average Diamond Rio a 4% margin and HUGE inventory + a very bad black market/wholesalers market that GREATLY affect "perception" of quality. P.

Here you can get info for Mac OS X Server 1.2

Well, in that case I'd be surprised that they allow Li-Ion batteries around, given that they have a tendency to spontaneously explode.

Maybe we can expect to see Halo finally! Go Bungie!

Disclaimer: This post suffers from Rose Colored Glasses Syndrome (RCGS), a sometimes deadly disorder associated with blind devotion to particular software companies beyond all evidence to the contrary. Please give as much as you can afford to the RCGS support outlet near you. With your help, we can eradicate this dread disease.

actually that was the subject of an Adobe Macromedia law suit a few years ago. Adobe seemingly has patented the dragging of tabs from one palette to another.

info can be found here, and here as well as the standard google search

Here: Adobe sues Macromedia over the use of tabbed windows and is awarded 2.8 million by the jury for damages. The funny thing is that Macromedia countersued Adobe shortly after and was awarded 4.9 million for simularly stupid patents. So Adobe ended up loosing 2.1 million plus all the court costs for what they did. Ironic indeed.

Here: Adobe sues Macromedia over the use of tabbed windows and is awarded 2.8 million by the jury for damages. The funny thing is that Macromedia countersued Adobe shortly after and was awarded 4.9 million for simularly stupid patents. So Adobe ended up loosing 2.1 million plus all the court costs for what they did. Ironic indeed.