-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple sues website for spilling the beans!
- Thread starter suaveric
- Start date
- Status
videogamer
Banned
Nick dePlume 
Phoenix
Member
Will be interesting to see which sites actually try to defend themselves in the suit. What Apple is really suing for is the information about who spilled the beans so Apple can sue that person(s). These websites are resisting and it will be curious to see how the courts handle this matter in particular - if it goes that far.
Shogmaster
Member
Phoenix said:
What does sites like Think Secret have to lose, really? It's not like they get official Apple support ever, do they?
Phoenix
Member
fart said:
They all do. Apple has been a LOT quicker delivering the smackdown than they were in the past. In the past people got away with a lot more posting of information, screenshots, etc. They've also been increasingly hard on prerelease leaks by starting to use hardware keys on their beta software as well.
Shogmaster
Member
Phoenix said:
They don't even know the guy's name that runs it!
They've been doing this quite frequently recently, and this is ThinkSecret's 2nd or 3rd rumble with Apple in about a month's time. They reported on a GarageBand plug-in or adapter eariler, of which the details and codename elude me at the moment. Of course, as Ars Technica notes, this generally offers few benefits to Apple themselves other than lending credibility to the rumors as they tend to disclose implicit information that all but confirms things; it could put sites like ThinkSecret & AppleInsider under, but in all due likelihood, at best, they'll resurface elsewhere.
I'm just excited to see what happens next week at the Mac conference. The xMac could be interesting, but I'm far more interested in PowerBook adjustments and other more definitive, and less exciting to Wall Street, developments. iWork definitely sounds interesting.
I'm just excited to see what happens next week at the Mac conference. The xMac could be interesting, but I'm far more interested in PowerBook adjustments and other more definitive, and less exciting to Wall Street, developments. iWork definitely sounds interesting.
Shogmaster
Member
Phoenix said:
Yeah, I know. I just think it's funny that "Nick DePlume" is being sued. :lol
keeblerdrow
Member
That's like saying Nintendo directly competes with Microsoft and Sony, though.
Yeah, I mean, Macs are in a totally different world than P.C.s.
As a P.C. user, I could really care less what's on the MAC OS because I can't run it. And vice versa. Mac's can't run Windows.
So, I'm trying to figure out, what's the big deal if a feature about your monopolistic software gets out? No one else produces the Mac OS afterall.
As a P.C. user, I could really care less what's on the MAC OS because I can't run it. And vice versa. Mac's can't run Windows.
So, I'm trying to figure out, what's the big deal if a feature about your monopolistic software gets out? No one else produces the Mac OS afterall.
Shogmaster
Member
-jinx- said:
Come on now. Do you Mac guys actually think HP or Dell gives a hoot about the headless Mac? It's just more thrashing about below the 5% line.
Wake me up when it actually matters.
videogamer
Banned
No one else makes Windows XP either. You can install alternate OS' like Linux on the Mac or PC. So, what exactly makes Mac OS "monopolistic"?Crow357 said:
Shogmaster said:
Perhaps, but I'm sure Microsoft cares, albeit marginally, about things like iWork which could potentially threaten their Office sales on the Mac platform, and if iWork gets combined with the xMac, along with peripheral influences such as the iPod momentum or the frustration with Windows security, it could have an effect on Dell and other low cost PC makers depending upon circumstances. The bottom line is that while none of the rumored announcements will necessarily turn markets on their heads, it can be a costly mistake to wholly ignore any of them for competitors, Windows or Mac OS X regardless. Consumers aren't locked into one platform for life after all and it would be naive to simply dismiss a competitor simply because of past trends. Check the Gaming Forum for the current scenario about the handheld scene.
Point 1: Macs are PCs. The term "PC" is used mainly to describe "Windows-powered PC," but mainly because people are lazy and ignorant.
Point 2: Anyone who thinks Apple is a monopoly just because it is the only manufacturer of Mac PCs really needs to go back to school and learn just what "monopoly" means.
Apple competes with every other PC manufacturer out there. Apple also competes directly with Microsoft. They are both operating system manufacturers, and people choose between operating systems based upon their features.
You can't argue that Macs, Wintel or other systems are so different as their use to be mutually-exclusive; they are merely different solutions to the same problems. I can do the same things on my Mac that I can on my PC, I just use different programs for the most part. This is where the difference is blurring: As ideals like open source and platform awareness converge, programs are finding their way onto more platforms concurrently. It's just like multi-platform game publishing. It's not a difficult concept, really.
Case in point: I use my Powerbook at work, along side my work WinXP PC. If I want to edit a document residing on XP using my Mac, I can port it to the Mac over the network (yes Macs can access PC file shares OMG TEH INNOVATION) and use the Mac-tweaked version of MS Office. When I want to get on IM later when I get home, I can use either Trillian on my WinXP box or Fire on my Mac.
Note that in that example, I could replace "Mac" with "Linux laptop," change up a few program names and it will still be valid.
Point 3: What you Windows-only users ought to do is start checking out other operating systems. Download a Linux distribution -- sure, Redhat (now "Fedora") is fine, check out Mandrake or SUSE too. Play with it, learn its differences. If you go to school at an institution with Macs, give one a spin. Both Linux and MacOS are nice operating systems, although they have their quirks, just like Windows. Get off your butts and discover why people are using things outside the MS-o-sphere.
Point 2: Anyone who thinks Apple is a monopoly just because it is the only manufacturer of Mac PCs really needs to go back to school and learn just what "monopoly" means.
Apple competes with every other PC manufacturer out there. Apple also competes directly with Microsoft. They are both operating system manufacturers, and people choose between operating systems based upon their features.
You can't argue that Macs, Wintel or other systems are so different as their use to be mutually-exclusive; they are merely different solutions to the same problems. I can do the same things on my Mac that I can on my PC, I just use different programs for the most part. This is where the difference is blurring: As ideals like open source and platform awareness converge, programs are finding their way onto more platforms concurrently. It's just like multi-platform game publishing. It's not a difficult concept, really.
Case in point: I use my Powerbook at work, along side my work WinXP PC. If I want to edit a document residing on XP using my Mac, I can port it to the Mac over the network (yes Macs can access PC file shares OMG TEH INNOVATION) and use the Mac-tweaked version of MS Office. When I want to get on IM later when I get home, I can use either Trillian on my WinXP box or Fire on my Mac.
Note that in that example, I could replace "Mac" with "Linux laptop," change up a few program names and it will still be valid.
Point 3: What you Windows-only users ought to do is start checking out other operating systems. Download a Linux distribution -- sure, Redhat (now "Fedora") is fine, check out Mandrake or SUSE too. Play with it, learn its differences. If you go to school at an institution with Macs, give one a spin. Both Linux and MacOS are nice operating systems, although they have their quirks, just like Windows. Get off your butts and discover why people are using things outside the MS-o-sphere.
Shogmaster
Member
Macam said:
Look man, as long as Apple remains closed off hardware platform, I don't think any of this matters in the end since you don't have competition driving costs down. And for PC consumers, $500 without a monitor is still alot for such minimal machine (not necessarily power wise, but feature wise).
If anything, iWorks is more threatening then the headless iMac to MS since MS is a software company, and don't give a hoot about hardware sales unless it threatens to effect the software sales.
In a year from now, I predict that the "xMac" (I don't know where that "x" comes from, but whatever) would just end up canabalising eMac sales and that's it.
No one really knows what, if it even exists, the xMac will carry software wise, although the pile of rumors suggests that Apple may include software like part of the iLife suite (namely iTunes and iPhoto), as well as potentially iWorks in the mix. In that case, you don't need to buy any additional software as you would, I believe, with low end PCs (unless they offer Office bundled in or some alternative, etc.) to gain the same kind of functionality. Maybe it'd just have OS X and Apple would bank on security, ease of use, the iPod halo effect, and sleek design to sell it. Point being, the xMac could still be a be a real player in the lower end market, regardless if it's not the cheapest choice out there. The iPod isn't the cheapest portable music player, or the most feature intensive. Nor is the PlayStation 2 when it comes to either side of the home console market. We'll see what happens, if it happens, when it happens. I just think your prior statement was prematurely dismissive considering the potential circumstances.
And I believe the 'x' in xMac is either based off a codename or just used to imply some unknown Mac model, since the iMac name is already used for the higher end machines by Apple.
And I believe the 'x' in xMac is either based off a codename or just used to imply some unknown Mac model, since the iMac name is already used for the higher end machines by Apple.
Shogmaster said:
"Closed off" how? Last I checked, about the only thing unique about the hardware was that it uses a PPC-based CPU. The drives are SATA, the video cards are AGP, the memory is DDR SDRAM, and most, if not all, come with USB and Firewire connections. Apple's even dropped their proprietary ADC shit for straight DVI.
Unless you're (inexplicably) talking about NuBus.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
so whats the 'rumor' on the powerbook? and when can we expect these updates to be in stores??
Apple can't get the Powerbook to G5 due to the heating problems. Yes, they did it for the iMac, but it's decidedly bigger than a laptop.quadriplegicjon said:
Expect speed bumps either at Macworld or I'd say toward the middle of the year.Really, nothing's going on with the Powerbook front until they figure out how to cool down the G5.
Shogmaster
Member
xsarien said:
Closed off hardware as in only Apple can combine the said list of hardware and make "Macs". If anyone else attampted to combine the said list of hardware and sell you a "Mac", Apple would rape them with sandpaper condom in multiple holes. Legally speaking...
shantyman said:
That is my magic.
Macam said:
That's a lot of assumptions. Both iLife and "iWorks" packed in with the "xMac"? Shit, why would anyone other than graphics pro buy anything other than xMac?
Seriously, do you really think Apple would be generous enough to pack in all those apps in their lowest cost Mac? Stretching it a bit, no? They probably feel they are being more than generous by offering the PC scums a $500 Mac outside of ebay in the first place.
I went through this with someone else before, and I guess I have to with you as well. We know that iPod is not the most feature filled nor the best HD music player in all respects. But do you really think all the people buying iPods know that? What's Apple's marketing push with the iPod, that it's a second fiddle HD music player? No. They have successfully branded the iPod as the premier HD based music player. Check out any iPod thread here. Most iPod users in the thread will argue with you as it being the best HD music player of the bunch, regardless of some of us coming in and mentioning things like the iRiver HD series. Your iPod argument is barking up the wrong tree, as is your PS2 one. The PS2 is sold based on wealth and depth of software selection, coming from overwelming marketshare. Not something that's exactly an Apple strong suit. Your analogy with those two items only sound right and logical if you don't really think about the facts.
On second thought, I like "xMac" better than "headless iMac". Less to type.
I'm not going to waste much more time debating rumors here, Shog, but I'm not making any assumptions as far as the xMac goes. I was merely suggesting ways that Apple could compensate for a higher price on low end hardware and appeal to the mass market by bundling software. And look, when you look at the facts about my analogies, I compared a potential low-end computer to a portable music player and a home console. Obviously, I'm not comparing apples to apples and only using it to demonstrate the notion that neither being the cheapest or having the most impressive feature set is going to guarantee you anything. Success comes from a number of factors, and the rumored xMac may end up with just the right combination.
quadriplegicjon: If you want details (in the form of rumors anyway) about the PowerBook line, AppleInsider just reported this today: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=813
quadriplegicjon: If you want details (in the form of rumors anyway) about the PowerBook line, AppleInsider just reported this today: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=813
- Status