JNZ Law Blogs

and i was all like.. PEW PEW PEW

As i recall apple was the first to call applications apllications. Windows uses programs. So why dont they use program store? Or prog store? They never used apps or applications nor they didnt complain before, they just hatin couse they want to profit from the name apple made famous and everyone thinks of apple's app store when the term is being thrown around.

They want to copy again thats the bottom line, and becouse they cant they want to play childish games.

1984 is not happening because companies and the government spies on you but because of people that are saying: "So what? It's not a big issue."

Now mind you, I say this as an investor, not as an enthusiast.

Is it just me, or is going public the WORST thing a company could do? When they do that, they get these crybabies who whine "I'm an INVESTOR and I DEMAND immediate results! I insist on my short-term ROI that you deliver! Don't you realize that I have invested xxxxx dollars in your company, therefore you owe me big time!".

Well boo-frigging-hoo!

This was a long time coming!

But I hope MSFT stays in the race... Competition is good...

Read on and be wowed:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016

Unfortunately that seemingly inadvertent leak was recanted today by the radio host

http://www.yourmaclife.com

Let's hope the video streaming is less interupted than that of AirTunes.

iTunes is made by APPLE so of course its going to have application as the file names. Show a MS production that uses application as a term.

Again why cant MS just call is their MobileApp store? Adding mobile to the front of app would solve their problems no?
Or add WinApp Store. Why isnt MS doing that?

Its because they want to take a shot at apple, its the only small victory they can get since osx is better than windows, and of course the ipod is better than their joke of am mp3 player Zune.

That is MS Explorer calling the iTunes.exe file an Application. It has nothing to do with Apple. Anything ending in .exe will have the same description.

It's all irrelevant to the conversation though... we are discussing "App Store" not "Application."

this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.

apple needs to stop being so secretive. they need to start acting like a real computer company, and let there customers know when upgrades are coming.
i wouldnt be surprised if we didnt see these upgrades till october.. no.. january.


this is ridiculous.


/end rant

If ditching the 320M and switching to an i-processor boosts battery life even 10%, I think it will be worth it.

People who want to play modern games on these systems should already be aware of their limitations; sure, a graphics downgrade is a bummer, but the Intel IGP is good enough for most general productivity needs. And it's already been proven to handle 1080p out.

The general sentiment that the 2012 will be an improvement on 100% of the internals is likely accurate. However, there are four changes that will make this a 100% buy for me:

1) Backlit keyboard (my biggest hope).
2) Larger SSD. 90+ GB base (128 would be most likely, I reckon), 380+ GB BTO.
3) +10% Battery life. An extra 30 minutes to an hour would be spectacular.
4) Core i ULM processor.

Err, buy an external HD or upgrade your iBook HD!

I have a 1Ghz iBook with a 80GB HD (upgraded it myself) and 2 160GB firewire HD's so what was your point?

My point is...

1) The Movies take up huge amounts of storage space.
2) I hate having to always plug external drives into my iBook.
3) We need redundancy for storing these movies we buy. An "external HD" just won't cut it.
4) If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.

Shard,

Didn't you hear! The new Apple phone is powered by the newly designed low-power embedded G5 chip.

G5 power phones next Tuesday! Woo Hoo!:D :D :D :eek: :confused:

And only 6 inches thick :eek: :p :D

I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.

This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.

Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".

Who cares if it's vanity? I'd rather somebody buy a Red iPod and feel good about themselves, be able to brag to their friends and show off to the community than for the same person to otherwise do nothing.

As long as it's legal I'm pretty sure the folks in charge of the aid money don't care where the money's coming from. I don't think the AIDS sufferers in Africa give a rat's arse that the money that helps their problems comes from rampant western consumerism - they're just happy to have some help.

I think it's a good idea.

I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.

(I feel dirty defending Microsoft, but...)

Microsoft aren't selling windows called Windows, they're selling an OS called Windows. It is a generic phrase, but it's not a generic phrase for the object it describes. App Store is (to me at least!) a generic phrase for an application store.

Can you provide any indications that Intel is dropping support for Thunderbolt? Any reason to believe that PC makers won't provide USB ports like they do now but also DisplayPorts like they do now, only in both cases the ports are upgraded to support USB 3 and thunderbolt?

I think it is too early to really get a read one way or the other. I am hopeful that TB will take off. But this time I think it will be more the drive and peripherals vendors that will make or break it. If they can do a USB3 drive and it will work with any system that has USB3 and/or TB, why would the also do a TB version? I am not saying they won't, but there is certainly an incentive to drop the extra sku and investment that a TB version would require.

I wanted to get a 15" MBP, but more and more they look like bags of hurt :(

Maybe imac is the way to go

It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow"

Why would you do that? :O

At least I won't have to wait 22 years to actually use it =p

Are you sure? What ThunderPort devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?

although i dont know enough about the bittorrent protocol to fully understand the effects of prioritizing consecutive pieces.

I think you just hit on why you can't watching streaming video with Bittorrent.

It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?

I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...

Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.

It's a great result!

History in the making.

Cheers To The "Kids" from Cupertino :)

Woz will be proud.

Bravo... get rid of those guys... good environmentalists don't commit aggression on others.