BLUELION
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
This is a rumor site??? Really?? No way!
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
CalBoy
Apr 11, 12:14 PM
This is bunk. Apple will not miss Christmas. Period, end of discussion.
If the 5 launches a short while before Christmas, the supply constraints would be 10x worse than they are for the iPad right now.
The only thing this rumor proves is that bloggers, speculators, and analysts are getting irritated with the lack of solid info compared to this time last year.
If the 5 launches a short while before Christmas, the supply constraints would be 10x worse than they are for the iPad right now.
The only thing this rumor proves is that bloggers, speculators, and analysts are getting irritated with the lack of solid info compared to this time last year.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 5, 08:40 PM
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
RMBootneck
Mar 22, 07:59 PM
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
VERY well said!
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
VERY well said!
0815
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
Interesting ... I was always told by Android Fans that the system is so "open" and not "fragmented" ... hmmm ... looks like google disagrees and admits it is fragmented and that 'closed' is better :D
BC2009
Apr 7, 11:50 PM
As an example; lets say the local BB store got a 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G's in this morning. That is about $830K in sales. And lets say they average sales without the iPad 2 for the same day LY was $500K. Next year that manager would be looking at needing a $1.3M+ to make his goal.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 04:26 PM
<snipped...>I don't think you realize what you're asking for. A system that is capable of performing all possible tasks at once is just unrealistic. Nobody will ever equip a system like that, because no user will have those kinds of requirements.
Even in the PC world, where more slots are common, you almost never find a system that has actually filled all those slots with devices.
Amen. It makes me sick to see people crying foul.
"I want 4 of every port/slot there is, in a case that is no more than a foot tall, plus 2 3Ghz processors, blu-ray, dual gpus, all for $1500! And if Apple doesn't give it to me, I will never buy anything from them ever!"
Even though they will never even use them(all the ports/slots). Most people will fill the x16 and maybe an old school PCI slot. Thats about it.
Even in the PC world, where more slots are common, you almost never find a system that has actually filled all those slots with devices.
Amen. It makes me sick to see people crying foul.
"I want 4 of every port/slot there is, in a case that is no more than a foot tall, plus 2 3Ghz processors, blu-ray, dual gpus, all for $1500! And if Apple doesn't give it to me, I will never buy anything from them ever!"
Even though they will never even use them(all the ports/slots). Most people will fill the x16 and maybe an old school PCI slot. Thats about it.
TrollToddington
Apr 6, 01:21 PM
You can't please everyone with a tiny 11" or 13" machine. I think people on here expect far too much from such a small package. If you want the best of all worlds go and get the uber 15" with 256GB SSD. If you pay anything less you are in for a compromise.
Manic Mouse
Aug 27, 04:54 AM
Yup, heat is no problem. :) Cost on the other hand is. Going from a 2.4 GHz Conroe from a 1.83 GHz Yonah on the low-end is roughly a 30% increase in cost JUST for the CPU. As for your "iMac Ultra"...
$1000 - 2.93 GHz Conroe
$800 - 23" Display
$300 - X1900
$400 - Hard Drive, Optical Drive, RAM etc.
+ Build costs, marketing costs, logic board cost, casing costs etc.
+ Apple's profit margin
And you are easily looking at a $3000 machine.
I want to see:
Vw Beetle Front View
2000 Volkswagen Beetle RSi
volkswagen beetle 2012
volkswagen beetle convertible
2011 volkswagen beetle
2012 volkswagen new eetle
Volkswagen Beetle
2010 Volkswagen Beetle sketch
Picture of 1969 Volkswagen
2001 Volkswagen Beetle Front
$1000 - 2.93 GHz Conroe
$800 - 23" Display
$300 - X1900
$400 - Hard Drive, Optical Drive, RAM etc.
+ Build costs, marketing costs, logic board cost, casing costs etc.
+ Apple's profit margin
And you are easily looking at a $3000 machine.
I want to see:
neko girl
Mar 1, 12:30 AM
In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Squire
Jul 15, 08:12 AM
A real mess? That's one fine looking machine. IMO
Yeah, I wish I had the 4 grand to buy one. I guess that's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about these (rumored) new machines. No way in hell I'll be able to afford one. No...no way in hell I'll be able to justify spending that much on a computer (Read: "I'd like to but I have a wife and I would never be able to convince her." BTW, how's life, ~Shard~? :D)
Again, as millions of other MacRumors members have pointed out, a cheap Mac Pro would rock. But, alas... <Sigh>
-Squire
Yeah, I wish I had the 4 grand to buy one. I guess that's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about these (rumored) new machines. No way in hell I'll be able to afford one. No...no way in hell I'll be able to justify spending that much on a computer (Read: "I'd like to but I have a wife and I would never be able to convince her." BTW, how's life, ~Shard~? :D)
Again, as millions of other MacRumors members have pointed out, a cheap Mac Pro would rock. But, alas... <Sigh>
-Squire
jonnysods
Apr 6, 08:02 AM
Yikes! Better offload my copy of the current version of FCS before it drops too low.
Any takers? :D
Any takers? :D
Steviejobz
Apr 8, 06:08 AM
The only reason I can think of (and I know nothing down these lines) is to push more revenue into this quarter (the last quarter just ended March 31st). Perhaps BB made their number for the quarter from Jan 1 to Mar 31 and want to get a running start on this current one.
BBY announced earnings on 3/24 - they operate on a different fiscal year so the quarter ended in February.
BBY announced earnings on 3/24 - they operate on a different fiscal year so the quarter ended in February.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
tk421
Nov 28, 09:34 PM
I'll just say what I said here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3036851#post3036851) again:
“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”
"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."
Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."
It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.
Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?
“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”
"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."
Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."
It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.
Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?
danz1123
Jun 11, 11:21 AM
Anyone know if I place a preorder on the 19th what the chances are I'll be able to make a reservation for the 24th?
CalBoy
Apr 11, 05:00 PM
Apple can create Christmas any day of the year.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
mashinhead
Aug 18, 09:17 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?
boringName
Nov 29, 08:06 AM
Appologies if this has already been brought up, but there were too many posts to read...
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more (http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a016Fkiaras.html)
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more (http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a016Fkiaras.html)
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
adamfilip
Aug 27, 08:53 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
I think you are missing the point
just cause a processor has 300 quadrillion transistors doesnt mean it will consume a huge amount of power.
if they released a memron that ran at 200mhz but lasted 24 hrs. would you buy it.. eventho it would be painfully slow?
its hard to balance Performance demands and power consumption
I think you are missing the point
just cause a processor has 300 quadrillion transistors doesnt mean it will consume a huge amount of power.
if they released a memron that ran at 200mhz but lasted 24 hrs. would you buy it.. eventho it would be painfully slow?
its hard to balance Performance demands and power consumption
aftk2
Aug 25, 04:09 PM
Speaking as someone whose iMac G5 has been out of commission and in the nearby Apple Store for thirty days (!), I'm not the happiest Apple user, either. Thing is, I've only ever had good experiences, prior to this. For example, I had one of the early Apple Studio Displays (the ones that looked like oversized bondi blue iMacs), and when it started wonking out, Apple sent me a box, shipping label pre-printed, and repaired it for free, even after it was out of warranty (there was a known defect.)
This latest episode has been pretty aggravating, though (although the only saving grace is that I'll likely be able to score an Intel iMac out of the deal, which I'm somewhat excited about.)
Heh, maybe I should have the Apple Store twiddle their thumbs for a few more weeks, and I might be able to grab a Core 2 Duo version. :P
This latest episode has been pretty aggravating, though (although the only saving grace is that I'll likely be able to score an Intel iMac out of the deal, which I'm somewhat excited about.)
Heh, maybe I should have the Apple Store twiddle their thumbs for a few more weeks, and I might be able to grab a Core 2 Duo version. :P
NJRonbo
Jun 15, 02:55 PM
Question for our Radio Shack representative here(BIBBZ)
Do you think that Apple will ship phones to stores
that were not able to obtain pin numbers?
Any estimation how soon after launch Radio Shack
may start receiving shipments of phones for the
general public?
Unfortunately, at $600, Radio Shack is my only
means of getting an iPhone with their $247 trade-in.
Otherwise, the phone is just too overpriced -- and
at $600 it comes with a new 2-year contract (not
no-commitment) since I am in mid contract already.
Do you think that Apple will ship phones to stores
that were not able to obtain pin numbers?
Any estimation how soon after launch Radio Shack
may start receiving shipments of phones for the
general public?
Unfortunately, at $600, Radio Shack is my only
means of getting an iPhone with their $247 trade-in.
Otherwise, the phone is just too overpriced -- and
at $600 it comes with a new 2-year contract (not
no-commitment) since I am in mid contract already.
dicklacara
Apr 19, 02:56 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
No comments:
Post a Comment