illa romza

Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation


As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…

The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.

One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.

The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.

Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.

Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.

Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)

LOLLLLLLL Can we just say quote of the year right there? Honestly got me lol. Props to you.

I hope to hell that Apple releases a media server (Tivo on steroids sounds right) with all the necessary inputs and outputs. Honestly, that would justify me getting my parents to get another mac in the household. :-)

But if this new product turns out to be a streaming player, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be MUCH more happy if they released a 80+GB (preferably 120) for 450 bucks 4.5" WS. Streaming portable video player is kinda unnecessary because, like many of you have mentioned before, if you can watch it on your 20" LCD screen why settle for 3-4"? Only time I use streaming music on my PSP is taking a crap or shower. The PSP isn't really loud but I turn off my fan thing and it's more than adequate (I'm not expecting hi-def surround sound while I sing to my favorite GN'R song).

Hell, throw in the idea of an iPhone. Very unlikely but if they release the movie store they better release that full screen iPod. I'm waiting Apple...

iToilet has the VoiceOver option available to congratulate you when your crap falls in. Or there's some script that plays a clip/song when you successfully flush the toilet without it getting clogged. OK i'm done.

Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:

Intel got up to 3.4ghz with the Pentium 4, then they went back and released 2ghz with the Core Duo, so we're working back up from there.
The 2ghz Core Duo is faster than the 3.4ghz Pentium 4

Wife said Yes

But apple said no for now. Mac mini is core2duo for him right now lol

LOL, yet here you are claiming Thunderbolt is DOA. Hilarious.
Again, for those with reading difficulties, I made no such claim. I did agree with a post that implied it might be relegated to being considered Mac only. I'll still agree that might be what happens. I hope not, but I hoped FW would be successful too.

I am pretty sure a google search will find some adult-ed courses that might be helpful for you.

Wow, the dual screen output is what could some day push me over the edge. A 27" display + 2 27" Apple screens either side sounds pretty nice. Still not enough to make me part with my 30" ACD right now though.

You do realize you can do almost the same thing (not sure about resolutions) with USB2 displaylink adapters?

My lowly 2007 Santa Rosa MBP can handle this fine with one 22" monitor using the old EVGA UVPlus... I even run it over a hub that also does keyboard, mouse and iphone cradle. Slight delay, no stutter, nothing. videos play fine (never tried full screen, but it's my work computer, so no need for that).

EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.

-Don

Ah, faulty genetics.

This explains your behavior on the roadd AND a lot of your postings in MacRumors.

attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.

Cinch


But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)

1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)

The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.

On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.

The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.

Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.

:rolleyes:

Most people bought the current model for the SB CPU's, nothing to do with thunderbolt. Hideous? Erm subjectively the best looking laptops in production. Go troll somewhere else.

This really sucks! :eek:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

ultimate fanboys pay the price, ouch?!?!

They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.

Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.

Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.

The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.

I don't see the big deal

What exactly was this patent for? Why doesn't it affect other players and music services besides iPod+iTunes?

And as I said, they are their number one customer, also as reported in the WSJ. If you don't think some bonuses were rewarded at Samsung for landing the account with Apple, and that your number one customer isn't important, then you know very little about business.

A number one customer in their electronics division that accounts to a whopping 4 % of Samsungs sales

The reliance Apple has on Samsung is much more than that Samsung has on Apple...

I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.

I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.

I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.

Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!

Did anyone notice Disney introduced their own cell phone service? Normally not much but given Steve's close ties to Disney perhaps they have shared some info? www.disneymobile.com

Some very interesting features, makes me think of things that might be available with a mac phone service.

I think I'll just purchase a Core 2 Duo myself and drop it in my iMac.
Conroe, right?

This is just another pissing contest to result in a settlement and some bizarre technology sharing or nothing in particular.

It's posturing.

...Uh, Internet law 2001-B... because he's the international scapegoat of this decade. He must be blamed for all unfortunate and tragic events, no matter when, where, how or why they occured. Including and not limited to natural disasters, "acts of God", actions by foreign powers and anything else that blame could possibly (no matter how illogically) be assigned to. Because, dammit, if there were anyone else sitting in that oval office, the world would have progressed into a virtual utopia by now. :rolleyes:

My predictions for the next presidency: A variation of the same old ****, completely different guy.
LOL!

Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.

Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X.

So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.

Did he use an iGun?