What if these are all integrated directly into the main UI for the device rather than going to a separate app for each type of media, making the whole interface like a iTunes. If books, magazines etc are given the same level of importance as Apps, and the whole interface is a “guide” to your stuff. Think of it this way. If google Chrome OS is an OS based on a browser, imagine the iSlate’s os based on iTunes and Web Kit? The OS acts as a guide to your stuff. Rather than files and folders it’s based on what your items are, just like iTunes. The mythical metadata based OS. Apple’s been pushing things in this direction for a while now. If they did do something like this it would be a radical fundamental shift in the way we use computers. I know I’m not articulating this very well, and I’m probably 100% completely wrong, but it’s an Idea and I’m just putting it out there.

Ok, commence hate mail.

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Apple added an option to include a 3.33GHz quad core Intel Xeon processor in the Mac Pro on Friday. Along with the option for the faster processor, Apple also added the ability to include 2TB hard drives in its Mac Pro build-to-order options.

Personally, I’d still wait for the six core xeon processors due out next year or get an iMac instead.
[Read Mac Pro Gets 3.33GHz Quad Core BTO Option | Product News | The Mac Observer]

No related posts.

No related posts.

Three years ago, when it became clear that Apple (AAPL) was about to unveil some kind of mobile phone, critics began to weigh in on its chances of success. AAPLinvestors’ Terry Gregory, building on a list of skeptical quotes begun by MacDailyNews, has put together what may be the definitive collection.

[Read The great iPhone death watch - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Brainstorm Tech ]

No related posts.

Then there’s the way the story has been picked up by others. People are claiming that Apple delayed a bug fix of the software by three months, but this is simply not true. They told Rogue Amoeba what they had to do, but rather than comply they decided to stick to their guns. Make no mistake, it was rogue amoeba who caused the three month delay in getting a bug fix out to their customers, not Apple. John Gruber (whom I greatly respect) goes on the defence for RA claiming that the use of copyright statement is not in the SDK (it’s right there in black and white) and that they had no way of knowing that this was a violation until they had developed and submitted the App, because the details of the infringement were only in the rejection letter. This isn’t true though because it’s right there in the agreement. Gruber even posts the relevant section from the SDA agreement where it references the acceptable use of Apple logos and Images which contains the exact language of the rejection letter word for word. I also find it ridiculous that they claimed they weren’t sure why it was being rejected, but waited till the second rejection before they emailed Apple to get clarification.

The only sane response to this I’ve sen has been from Jeff Lemarche. He has a number of posts on the issue but I find his last one, where he defends his earlier statements and points out how wrong gruber is being on this issue to be the best:

But first, let me point out that there are actually two arguments that seem to be going on simultaneously, and not everyone is making a distinction between them:
Would it be good for the developer community and/or App Store Consumers if Apple allowed Rogue Amoeba to use these images in this way?
Was it unreasonable for Apple to reject the application?
I think we can all agree that the answer to the first question is a resounding YES. If I implied that I think otherwise, I apologize for it. It was not my intention.

But, if you’re going to go storming off after throwing a temper tantrum that would make a pre-schooler proud, in my mind, the answer to the second question had better also be YES. As long as Apple had a valid, substantive reason for rejecting the application, then the answer to the second question is NO. Not getting your way does not mean somebody else is being unreasonable. If the other party wasn’t unreasonable, a hissy-fit is an inappropriate response to not getting what you want

I have to agree. This whole thing to me seems more like a giant plea for attention by Rogue Amoebae. He goes on to say…

That it took three months to get a final rejection is almost certainly due to the fact that there was a concerted effort by a number of people inside Apple on Rogue Amoeba’s behalf. In the end, I would bet money that the legal department just wouldn’t sign off on any solution that included Rogue Amoeba’s use of Apple’s trademarked images. Is it unreasonable for a company to protect its trademarks? Of course not. Every first year law student knows about aspirin and knows that corporations have to protect their trademarks. Was it unreasonable for a legal department to protect their company’s interests? Of course not either, that’s their fucking job description.

Again, rogue Ameoba should have done the right thing for their customers and simply replaced the offending images. It’s funny that they defend themselves on their web site by claiming that this is just the same as a vnc client displaying the dock. I’m sorry, but that’s really stretching things.
Lemarche also points out:

Anybody, who is claiming that the SDK agreement doesn’t prohibit the use of these images in an iPhone application (including John Gruber) is wrong. If an agreement incorporates another document by reference, that document becomes part of the legal agreement, and the trademark guidelines, which are incorporated by reference into the SDK agreement, explicitly disallow the use of “Apple-owned Graphic Symbols” without written permission. This is so unambiguous and clear, it’s almost hard to believe a lawyer wrote it.

I could keep going on and on about this but I’ll just get more annoyed. It’s worth noting that if you look back on their blog you can see lots of incidences where rogue amoeba are complaining about the limits of the App store. That’s fair enough, but at the end of the day it is what it is. You know that going in. To then turn around and claim that you are surprised or shocked by the limitations is again disengenious. To be honest, I’m surprised they were developing for the iPhone at all as most of their Applications are glorified system hacks anyway. Still, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them back in the App Store once they realise what they’re missing out on and they’ve calmed down after their little temper tantrum.
Look, at the end of the day we’d all like the App store to be more open and the review process a little better. But remember the volume of Apps going through this process. Also remember that you know the rules going in. Sure there are times when they have made some pretty silly rejections, but I don’t think this is one of them. If anyone can show me a single other App which uses Apple’s images like airfoli touch does then I’d be happy to retract that statement but I highly suspect that there isn’t one. I think the only unreasonable thing about this rejection is that it was approved the first time. I suspect that is the mistake here.
At the end of the day, for every developer who leaves the App store there are a thousand more waiting to take their place. Many of these are talented programmers who are writing for the iPhone and doing so accepting the limits of the SDK and working to that rather than trying to publicly embarrass apple into giving them special treatment. As lemarche puts it:

Rogue Amoeba wanted an exception to the terms of the SDK agreement. They may not have realized that’s what they were asking for but that is, indeed, what they were after. They didn’t get the special treatment they wanted, so they decided to take their ball and go home, end of story.

For a very sane take on this whole thing please read all of Jeffs post on the subject: iPhone Development: My Last Word on Rogue Amoeba]
Also, I’d like to point out once again how similar this whole thing is to stock photography. There you have a distributer with a strict set of rules, and a slow approval process, that you can either accept or go elsewhere. And just like the App store you occasionally get rejections that seem harsh, make no sense or are just plain wrong, but unlike the App store most photographers accept that this is the price you pay for getting access to the marketing power and distribution channels of a large stock agency like iStock photo for example. You see very few photographers storm out of the stock market with a loud and public hissy fit every time they don’t get their way over a questionable stock rejection.

No related posts.

One of the things that people say an awful lot about the Apple Mac is that the OS is fantastic, that it’s very graphical and easy to use. What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 – whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format – is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics. We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.

Now, I know lots of people have reported on this by now, but it’s worth repeating. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Of course Apple has borrowed ideas from Windows too on occasion, although usually they are features that people have come to expect, rather than the whole look and feel.
Still though, you have to admire the gaul of the guy to say: “it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform”. Vista more stable than the mac? Really?
[UPDATE] Apparently they’re now denying it.
[Read Microsoft's new vision | Home Computing | Features by PCR ]

No related posts.

In my opinion all of this (apart from the actual book) is nonsense. First of all there’s the name. The use of the letter “x” is standard practice when you don’t know the number you want to use or you don’t want to reveal that number. I’ve spoken to a few writers and they all confirm that this is standard practice. Then there’s the claim that the name change is to bring Aperture into “alignment” with OS X. This also makes no sense what so ever. Aperture has never existed as an OS 9  programme, and OS X has used the X in its name since it’s first version years ago. There’s nothing to align? It doesn’t make any sense. People are seeing two and two and coming up with 10. (or X) Quicktime was called Quicktime X because Apple were jumping it to version 10.0. Somehow I doubt that Aperture is going to jump from version 2 to 10.

Then there’s the date thing. Why would you fake the date but keep the far more revealing name intact? Like I said, it makes no sense. On top of all this Apple has come out and flatly stated that their “Holiday Lineup is Set” and that there will be no more major new releases this year, which pretty much throws water on the “by the end of november or the end of the year claim”. I bring all of this up because, as is typical in the mac web, lots of sites have jumped on this rumour and continue to spread it despite the evidence (and simple logic) to the contrary. I want to see a new version of Aperture as much as the next person, but I highly doubt we’re going to see it this year, and it almost certainly won’t be called Aperture X.

No related posts.