Donz0r
Sep 13, 09:45 PM
There are a lot of sound business reasons for Apple to release an iPhone. But the biggest reason is that Steve must have a cell phone and you know he probably hates the industrial design and functionality.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
I think that they were supposed to announce this in one of the "one more things" on the 12th and something happened at the last minute. Two items lead me to this conclusion.
1. They never used a satellite link of the keynote to London(think Vodafone), which they mentioned before the keynote. Maybe it was just so London could watch. But then why not the folks at the Apple Expo in Paris.
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
You raise good points, but yesterday the big announcement was iTunes Movies. many people would be skeptical about downloading movies just a few bucks cheaper tahn you can Buy the dvd. So apple HAD to show that you could watch the downloaded movies on your TV somehow. Steve presented it correctly, the iTV was the missing link that made downloading movies via iTunes plausable.
e-coli
May 3, 11:38 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
Whaaaaa? :confused:
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 02:43 PM
For those wanting retina displays:
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
iMacx
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
well, i guess its time to start thinking about selling my mid 2010 2.93 27" :rolleyes:
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:29 PM
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Uh!? Anytime someone tells me there is a YYYY store, my first reaction is that it is a store that sells YYYY's. It is no different with an app store.
What would one buy at a record store?
What would one buy at a grocery store?
What would one buy at a paint store?
What would one buy at an app store?
Uh!? Anytime someone tells me there is a YYYY store, my first reaction is that it is a store that sells YYYY's. It is no different with an app store.
What would one buy at a record store?
What would one buy at a grocery store?
What would one buy at a paint store?
What would one buy at an app store?
pengu
Sep 18, 12:28 AM
because the p910 when released was a $AU1300 phone. i dont want to be paying for that TWICE (no phone is free. u either pay up front or you pay in your monthly contract) if i change carrier. you dont get a new Mac because you change ISP, do you?
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:42 AM
Looks the same to me! Its icons in a grid!
You should offer your legal services to Samsung. :p
You should offer your legal services to Samsung. :p
Small White Car
Nov 13, 02:06 PM
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
You should try it!
They didn't break the rules.
You should try it!
They didn't break the rules.
TheNightPhoenix
Sep 12, 05:56 PM
Nope. I already tested it and it's a no-go.
hmmm works fine for me :) Took a while longer to load on the iPod (had ablack screen for about 5 secs) but plays fine.
hmmm works fine for me :) Took a while longer to load on the iPod (had ablack screen for about 5 secs) but plays fine.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
iCrizzo
Mar 23, 05:44 PM
I downloaded all of these apps yesterday just in case!! I don't drink, but yes I am a smoker, not while I am driving.. but I have yet to find a good delivery service so some days I must ride dirty!! :cool: :apple:
AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 5, 03:22 PM
I have 3 predictions:
Movie Story
Updated Airport w/ video
One More Thing: Mac Media Center/Hub
Movie Story
Updated Airport w/ video
One More Thing: Mac Media Center/Hub
dejo
Nov 13, 01:37 PM
Jeff LaMarche's (co-author of "Beginning iPhone Development") take on this situation:
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I'm going to risk the ire of the maddening crowd once more, but I think somebody needs to come to Apple's defense this time. I love a good mob scene as much as the next guy, and I keep my pitchfork nice and sharp just in case the need should arise. But… the picture that Rogue Amoeba has painted in their farewell post doesn't look quite so black and white to me. Certainly, Apple could have handled many things about the situation better, but so could have Rogue Amoeba.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I'm going to risk the ire of the maddening crowd once more, but I think somebody needs to come to Apple's defense this time. I love a good mob scene as much as the next guy, and I keep my pitchfork nice and sharp just in case the need should arise. But… the picture that Rogue Amoeba has painted in their farewell post doesn't look quite so black and white to me. Certainly, Apple could have handled many things about the situation better, but so could have Rogue Amoeba.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:45 AM
knowing how apple is.....probably itunes purchases only.
Highly doubt it. I really hope not to be honest. They need to be competitive with Amazon if they do iTunes purchases only I believe they will lose a ton of Market share to Amazon. I think (hope) that Apple is smarter than that.
Highly doubt it. I really hope not to be honest. They need to be competitive with Amazon if they do iTunes purchases only I believe they will lose a ton of Market share to Amazon. I think (hope) that Apple is smarter than that.
freebooter
Sep 6, 01:23 AM
Yeah... yeah... Movies for the American audience...
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Consider yourself twice blessed :rolleyes:
...I don't even get TV shows... :(
Consider yourself twice blessed :rolleyes:
chrmjenkins
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
tvfilm
Dec 31, 07:18 PM
McAfee Marketing Department at work yet again.
I bet McAfee also creates the disease and the cure.
Just like the song, "Misery" (by Soul Asylum)
McAfee is struggling for business and it's a shame they use fear tactics to get dumb people to buy their products.
-------
"Misery" (by Soul Asylum)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQ2TIul8pI)
They say misery loves company
We could start a company
And make misery, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to see
Put me out of my misery
I'd do it for you, Would you do it for me?
We will always be busy, making misery
We could build a factory, and make misery
We'll create the cure, we made the disease
Frustrated Incorporated, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to feel
Put me out of my misery
Suicide kings and drama queens
Forever after happily making misery
Did you satisfy your greed, get what you need
Was it only envy, so empty
Frustrated incorporated...
I'd do it for you, would you do it for me?
I bet McAfee also creates the disease and the cure.
Just like the song, "Misery" (by Soul Asylum)
McAfee is struggling for business and it's a shame they use fear tactics to get dumb people to buy their products.
-------
"Misery" (by Soul Asylum)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQ2TIul8pI)
They say misery loves company
We could start a company
And make misery, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to see
Put me out of my misery
I'd do it for you, Would you do it for me?
We will always be busy, making misery
We could build a factory, and make misery
We'll create the cure, we made the disease
Frustrated Incorporated, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to feel
Put me out of my misery
Suicide kings and drama queens
Forever after happily making misery
Did you satisfy your greed, get what you need
Was it only envy, so empty
Frustrated incorporated...
I'd do it for you, would you do it for me?
prady16
Sep 5, 08:48 AM
Probably just a minor update.....Don't expect a biiiig update without any formal announcement or a press conference!
rychencop
Jan 1, 06:08 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular. i also think a company like McAfee has an interests in creating a panic so they can sell more software.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 01:27 PM
You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.
munkery
Mar 18, 08:10 PM
Linux = ~1%
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 02:01 PM
Not trying to be a aluminum foil hat theorist here but this is the kind of small first step that leads us down a dark path to a "Minority Report" kind of future.
But the Minority Report had the most amazing designs, and everything looked flawless. And you got to sort data with your hands.
If something looks really good and have a great UI, then it can't be bad.
But the Minority Report had the most amazing designs, and everything looked flawless. And you got to sort data with your hands.
If something looks really good and have a great UI, then it can't be bad.
maflynn
Mar 23, 04:32 PM
The seemingly only purpose of this app is to avoid the checkpoints could be dangerous to those of us who don't drink and drive. They should pull any app.
milo
Mar 30, 01:00 PM
Apple is upset at Amazon for using AppStore.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
What's your point? Are you trying to phrase it in a way that sounds like the two are somehow the same? Apple was awarded the trademark to "app store" and other companies want to use it - whether that trademark holds up we'll have to see.
Go to about 1:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
And what does that have to do with the app store trademark? He doesn't mention "app store" does he?
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point.
Good point. The obvious alternative to App Store is Application Store.
Along those same lines, the term ANDROID was in general use and considered generic and not trademarkable. In Star Wars, George Lucas used the term Droid - since it hadn't been used before he was able to trademark the shorter term (which he still holds).
News Flash 2013 Apple trademarks:
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
What about the Container Store, which is trademarked? Seems like the difference is whether or not the term is in common use before the trademark is filed.
Microsoft is upset at Apple for using App Store.
What's your point? Are you trying to phrase it in a way that sounds like the two are somehow the same? Apple was awarded the trademark to "app store" and other companies want to use it - whether that trademark holds up we'll have to see.
Go to about 1:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
And what does that have to do with the app store trademark? He doesn't mention "app store" does he?
However what isn't appreciated is that 'App' is in itself an abbreviation. It's debatable whether apple popularised it not but thats not the point.
Good point. The obvious alternative to App Store is Application Store.
Along those same lines, the term ANDROID was in general use and considered generic and not trademarkable. In Star Wars, George Lucas used the term Droid - since it hadn't been used before he was able to trademark the shorter term (which he still holds).
News Flash 2013 Apple trademarks:
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
What about the Container Store, which is trademarked? Seems like the difference is whether or not the term is in common use before the trademark is filed.
