4.Threaten to use the combined Google+Motorola patent portfolio against Apple products like the iPhone and iPad unless Apple stops suing Android vendors. This is good for Google since (if Apple does the deal) it means less risk of being sued over Android and less patent royalties that would need to be paid. Good for consumers since patent royalties increase the cost of devices.
Even better would be for Google to create an Android defensive patent pool. Anyone working with Google on Android (including HTC, Samsung, Dell, LG etc) would be able to join the pool with any mobile device/OS/etc patents they want to contribute. Google would contribute relavent patents from the Google pool plus whatever the new Motorola pool has. Any Android vendor that is sued over an Android handset gets to use the entire Android patent pool as a counter-attack.
A patent chest isn't like a sword, in that you can't just swing it at people you don't like. You have to, you know, like have an argument that your opponent is infringing on one or more of your patents.
As for your talk of a defensive patent pool, the difficulty of this type approach is that is generally requires patent holders to surrender some control over their patens and if the patents in question are ones that bring in revenue through licensing, then companies are generally reluctant to do this.
It also may have escaped your notice but Google have shown absolutely no interest in assisting companies who are being menaced by Microsoft and Apple so the test here will be waiting to see if Google will revisit this 'silent partner' now they have a sword. Exactly how sharp that sword is, remains to be seen.
You can say it is too little too late, but you are thinking of Palm. RIM has been hitting record profits for the last few years and is sitting on a huge pile of cash, much like Apple was when they introduced OSX. They introduced a decent platform, and they have the time to make incremental improvements, which is what it will take.
Apple most certainly didn't have a "huge pile of cash" back in March 2001 when OSX launched, OSX pre-dated the iPod (September 2001) which took a couple of years to restore Apple's depleted cash reserves. When OSX was introduced, it was far was decent and the polished product that OSX is today, it was highly maligned and Apple had to give away 10.1 Puma for free.
You are seeing parallels where there are none and your recollection of Apple history is terrible.
How is this an 'upside' for Wii, Xbox and PC owners - unless of course they are petty, small-minded people who take some perverse pleasure in somebody else not being able enjoying themselves?
Indeed, and the labels have already conceded DRM, which consumers don't like - I never liked it and I was onboard with iPod and iTunes from the 2nd gen iPod. I think we're at the point where labels accept that a sizeable part of the market will only buy digital music, fighting it at this point is futile. If people can't get music legally on the terms they want, they'll probably pirate and the labels lose out entirely.
I'm thinking your confusing web-based front-end with backend infrastructure. I think Apple do pretty well at the former but have always lacked in the latter but for the past couple of years have been building a ginormous data centre in North Caroline which is coming online any time now.
Speculation has long been that this would be for some cloud based system so it may all be coming together to Apple. Or course, it may not:)
The tech specs on Apple's own website shows 1024x768 resolution, and no mention of the rumoured improved display (that is the rumours that were circulating when most credible reports debunked the retina display rumours). But for me, as a non-iPad owner, the incentive to buy is being able to render all my existing video - including the 1080p stuff the original iPad hasn't got the CPU/GPU muscle to render.
Unless you're already bought into the Apple ecosystem of iTMS media and/or even MobileMe. Sure, there are alternatives if you have non-Apple smartphone but for those who want things to 'just work', the iPhone will still be a draw.
How is this any different from what apps on an iPhone can do? Last time I checked many of them had access to address book, text messages, etc. Sounds like FUD to me.
Then you've never checked. A lot of developers have complained about the inability of apps to access to user data, except in a few circumstances. This is by design. Indeed in iOS it's only recently been possible for apps to put appointments into the calendar, they still can't peruse and data mine it.
I have no love for people who force their way in to IT systems but the utter lack of security and safeguards in sensitive US systems in relation to what he did does tend to look as though the repercussions are more relative to embarrassment than actual harm.
Obviously this is based on what the, highly biassed, media report, but having worked in IT a while, it's really not THAT hard to take minimum precautions to minimally secure systems and it looks as though key US Government organisations did not do this.
It really does look as though its a nuke the intruder response to somebody who walked in, without forcing entry, into somewhere they should not have been.
iPhone OS already supports PDF viewing; I have a gig or so of legislative PDFs on my iPhone 3GS that I browse with the 'Air Sharing' app. What Apple announced is more subtle, which is PDFs being supported by their eBook reader with the same functionality of native eBooks.
Weird. I run XBMC on a 2Ghz Core2Duo 1Gb RAM Intel GMA950-based MacMini with OSX 10.6 which also runs TED (scheduled torrent downloader) and Transmission (P2P client) and it XBMC outputs 1080p from an external USB drive just fine as well as downloading in the background. iStatPro tells me the CPU-usage never goes over 90% (1080p only). On a modern MacMini with 9400M GPU it'd probably never peak above 40% CPU usage.
Or perhaps because, as portable as HTML is, and as neat as the Mobile Safari is, it's still quicker, more convenient and friender to navigate a UI designed for a small screen multi-touch interface than a web browser.
Not to me. Apple hasn't actually actively tried to destroy other companies yet.
Adobe? Amazon? Google (indirectly)?
Woah, hyperbole alert. Apple veto flash on one platform, which has a small market share and this is supposed to "destroy" Adobe? Or are you referring to Aperture? Amazon? You mean iTMS competing with Amazon on music. I'm fairly certain Amazon would do just fine if they stopped selling online music entirely. Google? Huh? Google's core business remains search, which Apple doesn't do.
No significant add-on every does well for a console for a very simple reason: if its not built-in to the core system, game designers are very leery of designing around it.
The PlayStation launched with a controller that only had the standard d-pad for directional movement, yet the Dual Analogue Controller introduced in 1997 was both popular and well supported.
Maybe there is some subtlety I'm missing by Havok is part of every PS3 and Xbox 360 SDK and plenty of Havok games were released on PS3 last year, check out the list from Havok themselves:
http://www.havok.com/content/view/584/96
Windows makes use of unused RAM to cache code/data that past usage suggests the user makes common use of. If active programs or background threads need this RAM, this cache gets smaller as RAM is released. This sounds like a sensible use of otherwise-unused RAM to me.
Slashdot Mirror
4.Threaten to use the combined Google+Motorola patent portfolio against Apple products like the iPhone and iPad unless Apple stops suing Android vendors. This is good for Google since (if Apple does the deal) it means less risk of being sued over Android and less patent royalties that would need to be paid. Good for consumers since patent royalties increase the cost of devices.
Even better would be for Google to create an Android defensive patent pool. Anyone working with Google on Android (including HTC, Samsung, Dell, LG etc) would be able to join the pool with any mobile device/OS/etc patents they want to contribute. Google would contribute relavent patents from the Google pool plus whatever the new Motorola pool has. Any Android vendor that is sued over an Android handset gets to use the entire Android patent pool as a counter-attack.
A patent chest isn't like a sword, in that you can't just swing it at people you don't like. You have to, you know, like have an argument that your opponent is infringing on one or more of your patents.
As for your talk of a defensive patent pool, the difficulty of this type approach is that is generally requires patent holders to surrender some control over their patens and if the patents in question are ones that bring in revenue through licensing, then companies are generally reluctant to do this.
It also may have escaped your notice but Google have shown absolutely no interest in assisting companies who are being menaced by Microsoft and Apple so the test here will be waiting to see if Google will revisit this 'silent partner' now they have a sword. Exactly how sharp that sword is, remains to be seen.
You can say it is too little too late, but you are thinking of Palm. RIM has been hitting record profits for the last few years and is sitting on a huge pile of cash, much like Apple was when they introduced OSX. They introduced a decent platform, and they have the time to make incremental improvements, which is what it will take.
Apple most certainly didn't have a "huge pile of cash" back in March 2001 when OSX launched, OSX pre-dated the iPod (September 2001) which took a couple of years to restore Apple's depleted cash reserves. When OSX was introduced, it was far was decent and the polished product that OSX is today, it was highly maligned and Apple had to give away 10.1 Puma for free.
You are seeing parallels where there are none and your recollection of Apple history is terrible.
How is this an 'upside' for Wii, Xbox and PC owners - unless of course they are petty, small-minded people who take some perverse pleasure in somebody else not being able enjoying themselves?
Indeed, and the labels have already conceded DRM, which consumers don't like - I never liked it and I was onboard with iPod and iTunes from the 2nd gen iPod. I think we're at the point where labels accept that a sizeable part of the market will only buy digital music, fighting it at this point is futile. If people can't get music legally on the terms they want, they'll probably pirate and the labels lose out entirely.
I'm thinking your confusing web-based front-end with backend infrastructure. I think Apple do pretty well at the former but have always lacked in the latter but for the past couple of years have been building a ginormous data centre in North Caroline which is coming online any time now.
Speculation has long been that this would be for some cloud based system so it may all be coming together to Apple. Or course, it may not :)
Apple's lengthy list of open source contributions are listed at http://www.apple.com/opensource/
The tech specs on Apple's own website shows 1024x768 resolution, and no mention of the rumoured improved display (that is the rumours that were circulating when most credible reports debunked the retina display rumours). But for me, as a non-iPad owner, the incentive to buy is being able to render all my existing video - including the 1080p stuff the original iPad hasn't got the CPU/GPU muscle to render.
Sold.
Unless you're already bought into the Apple ecosystem of iTMS media and/or even MobileMe. Sure, there are alternatives if you have non-Apple smartphone but for those who want things to 'just work', the iPhone will still be a draw.
Are we going to pretend CodeWarrior next existed?
How is this any different from what apps on an iPhone can do? Last time I checked many of them had access to address book, text messages, etc. Sounds like FUD to me.
Then you've never checked. A lot of developers have complained about the inability of apps to access to user data, except in a few circumstances. This is by design. Indeed in iOS it's only recently been possible for apps to put appointments into the calendar, they still can't peruse and data mine it.
I'm no expert, but really? Somebody with the mental condition Aspergers didn't not respond in a rationale way?
I have no love for people who force their way in to IT systems but the utter lack of security and safeguards in sensitive US systems in relation to what he did does tend to look as though the repercussions are more relative to embarrassment than actual harm.
Obviously this is based on what the, highly biassed, media report, but having worked in IT a while, it's really not THAT hard to take minimum precautions to minimally secure systems and it looks as though key US Government organisations did not do this.
It really does look as though its a nuke the intruder response to somebody who walked in, without forcing entry, into somewhere they should not have been.
iPhone OS already supports PDF viewing; I have a gig or so of legislative PDFs on my iPhone 3GS that I browse with the 'Air Sharing' app. What Apple announced is more subtle, which is PDFs being supported by their eBook reader with the same functionality of native eBooks.
Some power-draw information for H.264 decode, full tilt GPU utilisation, 25/50/100% CPU utilisation of one/both cores would be welcome.
XBMC runs just fine on a MacMini with no keyboard/mouse and using just the standard 5 button Apple remote for navigation.
Weird. I run XBMC on a 2Ghz Core2Duo 1Gb RAM Intel GMA950-based MacMini with OSX 10.6 which also runs TED (scheduled torrent downloader) and Transmission (P2P client) and it XBMC outputs 1080p from an external USB drive just fine as well as downloading in the background. iStatPro tells me the CPU-usage never goes over 90% (1080p only). On a modern MacMini with 9400M GPU it'd probably never peak above 40% CPU usage.
Or perhaps because, as portable as HTML is, and as neat as the Mobile Safari is, it's still quicker, more convenient and friender to navigate a UI designed for a small screen multi-touch interface than a web browser.
Apparently slashtards don't realise this.
Uhh.. OS X? Aperture. Final Cut Pro. iTMS. iWorks. iLife. Logic Studio. Logic Express.
How are these Apple products digital prisons?
Not to me. Apple hasn't actually actively tried to destroy other companies yet.
Adobe? Amazon? Google (indirectly)?
Woah, hyperbole alert. Apple veto flash on one platform, which has a small market share and this is supposed to "destroy" Adobe? Or are you referring to Aperture? Amazon? You mean iTMS competing with Amazon on music. I'm fairly certain Amazon would do just fine if they stopped selling online music entirely. Google? Huh? Google's core business remains search, which Apple doesn't do.
You've never heard of Paul Thurrrott ??
Like Apple, who are building in North Carolina.
The actual change log for 3.2.0 beta (http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30287) merely states:
> Experimental support for Mac OS X guests
There's nowt about running the OSX guest on Apple hardware but maybe this is stated somewhere else.
No significant add-on every does well for a console for a very simple reason: if its not built-in to the core system, game designers are very leery of designing around it.
The PlayStation launched with a controller that only had the standard d-pad for directional movement, yet the Dual Analogue Controller introduced in 1997 was both popular and well supported.
Maybe there is some subtlety I'm missing by Havok is part of every PS3 and Xbox 360 SDK and plenty of Havok games were released on PS3 last year, check out the list from Havok themselves: http://www.havok.com/content/view/584/96
Windows makes use of unused RAM to cache code/data that past usage suggests the user makes common use of. If active programs or background threads need this RAM, this cache gets smaller as RAM is released. This sounds like a sensible use of otherwise-unused RAM to me.