CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
michaelrjohnson
Aug 6, 10:16 PM
Yeah, I'll be taking my lunch at noon (Central)... Maaaybe, just Maaaaybe I might be late getting back to work. ;)
On another note, I'm as excited about WWDC as the next member, but all these threads are starting to sound the same! :rolleyes::)
On another note, I'm as excited about WWDC as the next member, but all these threads are starting to sound the same! :rolleyes::)
raymondso
Oct 23, 07:44 AM
Hoping not only MBP, but also MP.
I've been waiting too long with my money burning my pocket :(
update: sorry, should be MB instead of MP, typing mistake
I've been waiting too long with my money burning my pocket :(
update: sorry, should be MB instead of MP, typing mistake
Rt&Dzine
Mar 22, 10:52 AM
I don't think that apple should be in the business of approving apps.
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
Should this apply to Apple's competitors as well? Or only Apple should not be allowed to approve/disapprove apps?
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
Should this apply to Apple's competitors as well? Or only Apple should not be allowed to approve/disapprove apps?
Foxer
Mar 19, 03:41 PM
this is exactley why marketshare has dwindled for Mac, they tell you its our way ( powermac) or if you dont submit then we will cripple the Hell out of the othermacs and leave you wanting, so the worlds says screw you Apple and buys a PC with everything they want in it and makes do with a OS that is less then perfect. This is why Apples new computer sales went to 1.7% of all new sales. Apple is a dictator mini monopoly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
iJohnHenry
Mar 31, 05:41 PM
Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the Germans?
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
macthetiger85
Apr 26, 04:35 PM
Windows and Amazon are not a generic names. If Microsoft would have named it "Operating System" then that would be generic. If Amazon were named "Online Store" then that would be generic. I'm sure Amazon could have named App Store something else, but then again, it's such a known term now that instantly helps customers identify what they are looking at.
I like Apple products, but they're beginning to be one of the most anal companies out there.
Actually windows is generic - a windows OS is an operating system with a GUI that uses a desktop and windows (such as finder, word processors etc) developed by XEROX and first mass produced for the Apple Lisa. The generic term for that type of OS among others was windows OS - then Microsoft came out with a windowing OS and called it Windows and trademarked it. Microsoft is actually arguing against Apple exactly what they did years ago. Back on topic though - it doesn't matter - Amazon is using it while Apple has already filed for the mark. The courts will settle this and if it goes to Apple, Amazon will pay big and have to change their name. Would have been simpler to just change their name to begin with.
I like Apple products, but they're beginning to be one of the most anal companies out there.
Actually windows is generic - a windows OS is an operating system with a GUI that uses a desktop and windows (such as finder, word processors etc) developed by XEROX and first mass produced for the Apple Lisa. The generic term for that type of OS among others was windows OS - then Microsoft came out with a windowing OS and called it Windows and trademarked it. Microsoft is actually arguing against Apple exactly what they did years ago. Back on topic though - it doesn't matter - Amazon is using it while Apple has already filed for the mark. The courts will settle this and if it goes to Apple, Amazon will pay big and have to change their name. Would have been simpler to just change their name to begin with.
lordonuthin
May 4, 07:14 PM
interesting. well i might get a mac pro someday. my homebuilt machine is a big hassle and i'm not there to work on it. i would rather have a computer that i can fold and use regularly
Building your own is fun but can be a real pain sometimes, especially if you use Linux :eek:
Building your own is fun but can be a real pain sometimes, especially if you use Linux :eek:
Unspeaked
Sep 6, 11:29 AM
Whre is FireWire 800?
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 05:48 PM
I have the same thing happens with my safari in full screen where you hover your mouse over the top and the menubar slide down it is a bug because it the bar serve no function right now -that definitely did happen in DP!
Although Safari has not crashed yet where it crash several time a day in DP1
I don't think it is a bug. It allows more screen to show when using full screen mode. The menubar re-appears when needed. Preview auto hides the menubar as when in full screen mode.
Although Safari has not crashed yet where it crash several time a day in DP1
I don't think it is a bug. It allows more screen to show when using full screen mode. The menubar re-appears when needed. Preview auto hides the menubar as when in full screen mode.
nylonsteel
Mar 23, 10:17 AM
1 Terabyte Classic - not
OllyW
Apr 10, 11:20 AM
I do and have been the last 10 years
Helped learning to ride a motorcycle also
I remember getting into an auto and mistook the brake for the clutch one time
I used to get confused riding old British motorbikes. I'd often knock it down a gear or two instead of finding the rear brake. :o
Helped learning to ride a motorcycle also
I remember getting into an auto and mistook the brake for the clutch one time
I used to get confused riding old British motorbikes. I'd often knock it down a gear or two instead of finding the rear brake. :o
Earendil
Nov 27, 06:02 PM
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
United Bamboo 2011 Cat Calendar
United Bamboo Calendar
United Bamboo Fall Winter
You Can Buy United Bamboo#39;s
Label Focus: United Bamboo
United Bamboo 2011 Calendar
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
slffl
Nov 29, 03:30 PM
To me the iTV is going to be Apples take on the Slingbox, and I can't wait to see it!!!
gkhaldi
Oct 23, 06:57 AM
I can bet $100 that there will be MacBook/Pro upgrades either this year or next year!
200 bucks says you can't predict the date ;)
EDIT = forgot the quote
200 bucks says you can't predict the date ;)
EDIT = forgot the quote
ju5tin81
Oct 24, 06:19 AM
Bring on the MacBooks...
Can't afford a pro :(
Can't afford a pro :(
tychay
Nov 28, 08:09 PM
I have no idea where you got that one from. The original Xbox never made a profit. Microsoft is deliberately selling the Xbox 360 at a loss to capture marketshare. However, the PS3 and Ninetindo Wii are selling like hotcakes, are latest big things, and have the buzz. The best laid plans ...
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
Jaster
Apr 3, 10:15 AM
http://cl.ly/3W1u1A3X0K0K1w0q3N2J/ScrollBar.png
The scrollbar stays a constant black regardless of content. It's a black semi-transparent overlay, and ontop of black backgrounds, you can just barely make out the hint of its outline (since it isn't quite solid black.)
Ah thanks.
Hopefully Apple implements some code into the OS/Webkit that looks up what colour the background is and colours the scrollbar light/dark accordingly.
The scrollbar stays a constant black regardless of content. It's a black semi-transparent overlay, and ontop of black backgrounds, you can just barely make out the hint of its outline (since it isn't quite solid black.)
Ah thanks.
Hopefully Apple implements some code into the OS/Webkit that looks up what colour the background is and colours the scrollbar light/dark accordingly.
SciFrog
Nov 8, 07:04 PM
bigadv are not available on windows but many are running virtual machines...
Pravius
Mar 22, 10:01 AM
Our society is way too sensitive. Approve the app, someone from the gay community make an app to counter this app... be free. Too many restrictions, rules, laws, and sensitivity in our society these days.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used.
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
rasmasyean
Mar 21, 09:52 AM
Yeah, I loved his little 'wargasm' too.
That little mushroom thingie probably took a few people along with it. I'd suggest that we keep our 'oohs' and 'aahs' limited to Fourth of July fireworks.
There's a bit of "wargasm" in all of us. Some of us have less, some of us repress it to be "civilized". But if there were no army ants in addition to worker ants, the colony would have never made it.
I'm just not "ashamed" to enjoy watching the now governer of California blow up things in make believe, and enjoy the types of games created by the business and tech legend who helped put computers in everybody's office and homes.
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
It's not an "assasination" in this case. It's a military leadership target of war. They killed many of Sadam Hussain's top people deliberately in the early days of the Iraq War for instance. If you're interested in seeing how many "assasinations" take place, Wikipedia lists that status on the wars we are invovled in where you can see KIA's of significant people. There you will find, KIA's on "Militant Islamic movement leaders" in addition to "generals"....sometimes tracked and blown up by a drone prolly flown from arround the world. When you "declare war", anything goes apparently.
That little mushroom thingie probably took a few people along with it. I'd suggest that we keep our 'oohs' and 'aahs' limited to Fourth of July fireworks.
There's a bit of "wargasm" in all of us. Some of us have less, some of us repress it to be "civilized". But if there were no army ants in addition to worker ants, the colony would have never made it.
I'm just not "ashamed" to enjoy watching the now governer of California blow up things in make believe, and enjoy the types of games created by the business and tech legend who helped put computers in everybody's office and homes.
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
It's not an "assasination" in this case. It's a military leadership target of war. They killed many of Sadam Hussain's top people deliberately in the early days of the Iraq War for instance. If you're interested in seeing how many "assasinations" take place, Wikipedia lists that status on the wars we are invovled in where you can see KIA's of significant people. There you will find, KIA's on "Militant Islamic movement leaders" in addition to "generals"....sometimes tracked and blown up by a drone prolly flown from arround the world. When you "declare war", anything goes apparently.
takao
Mar 2, 04:52 PM
the fact that after the second generation Jetta, VW had to rename the car in germany/europe (Bora, Vento) and still had lousy sales there, should have been a warning sign
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
pesc
Nov 27, 04:49 PM
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Do the math! A wide screen 17" display has fewer pixels than a 4:3 17" display (given the same dpi).
So I sincerely hope they aren't going to charge more for a wide display that has less pixels than a 4:3 display.
Do the math! A wide screen 17" display has fewer pixels than a 4:3 17" display (given the same dpi).
So I sincerely hope they aren't going to charge more for a wide display that has less pixels than a 4:3 display.
No comments:
Post a Comment