MacMan86
Apr 13, 04:11 AM
Actually, he is right. The two use different protocols when streaming. The video portion of AirPlay is done differently and does not require the private key. It just employs setting up a "server" whenever its being utilized. I have it set up on XBMC, and it works just as it would on an AppleTV.
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
I never said the audio and the video didn't work differently, what I said was AirTunes no longer exists. AirPlay contains what was AirTunes. Apple no longer use the label 'AirTunes' anywhere. http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/features/airplay.html only talks about AirPlay for instance. The iTunes streaming button is now called AirPlay too.
AirPlay video simply sends a URL to the video resource to the other device, and the other device plays the file at the URL which is served by the host. AirPlay audio uses the RAOP protocol.
There isn't a misprint in the article title as the poster claimed - the AirTunes moniker doesn't exist anymore
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
iJawn108
Sep 14, 06:51 PM
http://www.yardwear.net/blog/content/binary/ipod-phone.jpg
:rolleyes: as if
:rolleyes: as if
evilgEEk
Sep 4, 08:04 PM
This device is precisely why I haven't replaced my Airport Express (see sig). I sure hope this turns out to be true because this is exactly what I've been waiting for!
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
herecomestreble
Apr 25, 03:27 PM
Great, i hope the first thing to go is the razor sharp edge on the wrist palm edge, for long fingered fellas this thing has been a nightmare.
Jackie.Cane
Sep 13, 09:11 PM
Dear god, enough with the phone rumors already!:mad:
Kingsly
Oct 28, 02:28 AM
"Crushing all dissent" except for right here in the Macrumors forums. The only free place left in our Fascist dictatorship country where we can't roam the streets after curfew and cellular phones and other internet resources have been shut down. Hail Macrumors for fighting the oppression and risking life and limb so other freedom fighters like "Jobsrules" can dissent against President Bush in the only venue still open after all other forms of protest ceased after the 2000 election...
By the way, I am not sure if you've noticed or not, but their actually still are protests in the United States. It's a basic Right that hasn't been taken away under the Bush administration. We have freedom of the press, who largely dislike the President: e.i. Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Wolf Blitzer...
We have freedom of speech, albeit, apparently only here in the Macforums, we have freedom to 'peaceably' assemble, as stated in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, right to keep and bare arms... We don't have soldiers quartering in homes... we don't yet have to testify against ourselves in a court of law.
I guess I'm at a loss for what rights we have actually lost under the Bush Presidency... Not to mention what on earth it has to do with Greenpeace have trouble agreeing and adhering to rules and standards of conduct.
I rest my, er... your case! :)
By the way, I am not sure if you've noticed or not, but their actually still are protests in the United States. It's a basic Right that hasn't been taken away under the Bush administration. We have freedom of the press, who largely dislike the President: e.i. Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Wolf Blitzer...
We have freedom of speech, albeit, apparently only here in the Macforums, we have freedom to 'peaceably' assemble, as stated in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, right to keep and bare arms... We don't have soldiers quartering in homes... we don't yet have to testify against ourselves in a court of law.
I guess I'm at a loss for what rights we have actually lost under the Bush Presidency... Not to mention what on earth it has to do with Greenpeace have trouble agreeing and adhering to rules and standards of conduct.
I rest my, er... your case! :)
adese
Sep 13, 01:01 PM
just ordered a black 80gb w/ engraving
estimated ship : sept 18
estimated delivery : sept 25
estimated ship : sept 18
estimated delivery : sept 25
andiwm2003
Sep 19, 01:37 PM
1mio for 125000 movies. so they make an avaerage of $8 per movie. iTS sells them for about $10-$12.
so it seems apple makes about 2-3 bucks per movie (minus the bandwith/server cost).
i wonder if the movie business is profitable for apple or if it's merely to promote iPod's iTV and Mac's.
so it seems apple makes about 2-3 bucks per movie (minus the bandwith/server cost).
i wonder if the movie business is profitable for apple or if it's merely to promote iPod's iTV and Mac's.
applesith
May 3, 11:20 AM
2 External displays?? That is very very sexy! I want one. Too bad i can't justify the purchase.
Lefteous
Mar 22, 04:17 PM
Anti-glare anyone?
Would give a boost in companies and on my desk.
Would give a boost in companies and on my desk.
morespce54
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
What is your firearms experience? How many times have you been shot at? Do you think the security guard make a Hollywood head shot?
Not much to be honest but hey, that's only my 2c.
Don't loose any sleep over it! ;)
Not much to be honest but hey, that's only my 2c.
Don't loose any sleep over it! ;)
Eidorian
Jul 19, 07:59 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
tbobmccoy
Apr 14, 07:03 PM
They wouldn't have to add more hardware. USB3.0 is backwards compatible with 2.0. They would only have to disable 3.0 protocols somehow or artificially speed limit it to 2.0 speeds. I wouldn't put it past them. I KNOW if they got Blu-Ray drives somehow included with their hardware (i.e. only thing available), they would STILL not support it except in DVD/CD mode. Apple will do what they think is best for them NO MATTER WHAT. They don't give a flying rat's hind end about what the consumer wants. Steve thinks he knows better than anyone and he has a whole army of groupies telling him he's right so how on earth could he ever imagine otherwise?
I think this is a bit paranoid. Blu-ray just isn't that great of a tech for Apple to justify the increased cost of adding it to the MacBook Pro. Yes, there is some bias due to their DLC, but I doubt that's the ONLY reason blu-ray isn't available. Plus, I'd rather go without a drive period on my next MacBook. Give me the space savings, extra battery life, etc and let me have a thunderbolt drive, since I never use the drive outside of... installing software, and even that's rare these days.
I think this is a bit paranoid. Blu-ray just isn't that great of a tech for Apple to justify the increased cost of adding it to the MacBook Pro. Yes, there is some bias due to their DLC, but I doubt that's the ONLY reason blu-ray isn't available. Plus, I'd rather go without a drive period on my next MacBook. Give me the space savings, extra battery life, etc and let me have a thunderbolt drive, since I never use the drive outside of... installing software, and even that's rare these days.
ECUpirate44
Mar 29, 11:43 AM
You have clearly never used Windows 7.
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
oops thinking snapshot!
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
oops thinking snapshot!
Steve121178
Apr 20, 11:03 AM
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
How is the coffee?
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
How is the coffee?
whatever
Aug 23, 10:34 PM
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
MacRumors
Sep 26, 06:55 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 02:44 PM
kinda looks like a Target iPod Nano, no? :p
macsmurf
Apr 19, 07:34 AM
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:01 PM
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.
: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.
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:27 PM
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! What a wonderfully poignant response. You sure showed me:)
HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! What a wonderfully poignant response. You sure showed me:)
SockRolid
Mar 29, 01:16 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
