skalogre
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,348
- Reaction score
- 157
So, anyone hear Apple introduced a new cell phone?Originally Posted by Dakota rube
No way!
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
So, anyone hear Apple introduced a new cell phone?Originally Posted by Dakota rube
Originally Posted by ratboycom
Remember that The G5 Apple tower was supposed to be the best graphics and media computer available to the consumer when it came out, It was supposed to blow people away with its speed and performance, but was consistantly outperformed by both cheaper AMD and Intel based computers, including those from Dell and HP in every independant test done in the months just after its release. The main reason the switch from PowerPC to Intel took place is simply that Intel is a better platform. Faster, cheaper, cooler, more efficient. Anyone who refutes this is fooling themselves. So why then have people been trying to beat us over the head with how much better and higher quality Apple's hardware has been than say... Dell and HP for the past 10+ years? Now Apple uses the same hardware as Dell and HP. Amazing how the hype machine works isn't it? Congratulations all you lifelong Apple fans out there, the hype machine has left you without a leg to stand on...Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
If IBM could actually deliver what they promised to Apple, i.e. a 3 GHZ G5 by the spring of 2004 and a low powered laptop version within the same timeframe, there'd be no reason for Apple to switch platforms. Since they couldn't even get to 2.5 GHZ by the end of 2005 without using intricate water cooling, it'd be madness of Apple not to switch to a vendor that treats them right. They did the same thing when Motorola didn't deliver a powerful enough solution before the G5. If the PowerPC platform is as crappy as you say, then why would it be used by both Sony and Microsoft for their next-gen consoles? For certain uses it is indeed still superior to whatever Intel and AMD can offer.Originally Posted by Babar
Originally Posted by ratboycom
i want that shirt.Originally Posted by matadorpoeta
Much of PPC actually came from IBM in the 60s. Actually anything significant computer architecture-related probably came from IBM in the 60s anyway. As for MIPS ... let's just say that every industry has their Armani. Distinction between RISC and CISC is actually artificial and mostly meaningless --- it's more of a continuum of design choices than two polar opposites. For embedded applications, like game consoles, PPCs are valuable because they can be synthesized on custom ASICs with whatever other silicon you want. With x86s, you can only buy what you get off the shelf from Intel or AMD. That's OK for desktop computers, but sometimes not acceptable for applications where cost, power, and form factor are more important. The Xbox 360's 3-core CPU is a great example of this, where IBM could find the right sweet spot for Microsoft for the amount of computational power they wanted for the costs they had. --AndreOriginally Posted by Andre Yew
I meant the overall architecture, too. For example, MIPS's mandate of a branch delay slot in their instruction set really messes them up when they try to do superscaler or multiple issue later on. It may have been great when they had the classic 5-stage pipeline, but pretty shortsighted today. VAX's attempt to fill every nook and cranny in their instruction set encoding lead to their very complicated implementation and backwards compatibility headaches later on. I guess my point is that it's all related, and some design choices force certain things on the rest of the architecture. It's not as clearcut as a choice of RISC vs. CISC.Originally Posted by Andre Yew
PS: I actually agree with TS, et al., about Apple mice. I've never liked any them, and I wish on the MacBook (Pro) they would just expand the touchpad and give it "zones" for clicking just like they have zones for scrolling. (Two buttons would be seen as a retreat, so let them save face and come up with something better than control-click.) I use Macally trackballs in my home and office. They'd suck for graphics work, but they're the most efficient thing I've found for what I do.Originally Posted by SGladwell
February 22, 2007
By BRAD STONE
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 "” Apple and Cisco Systems have decided that a name is not worth fighting over.
On Wednesday, the companies settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. Six weeks ago, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco over Apple's planned use of the name for its much anticipated multimedia device, which combines the features of a mobile phone, an iPod and a BlackBerry.
Cisco claimed that it had owned the trademark since 2000 and was using it for a line of Internet-connected phones.
Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.
In addition, the companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together "in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication."
Representatives for Apple and Cisco said other terms of the deal would remain confidential. It is not known if Apple made a cash payment to Cisco, but intellectual property lawyers say some sort of payment is typical in these cases. It is also unclear whether Cisco had sold Apple the name iPhone outright and had then secured permission to use it itself.
But the deal appears to give a partial victory to both sides. Apple can begin selling its phone with the name that its strong-willed chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, seemed to prefer.
Cisco can also continue to use the name, and with the promise of interoperability, it might have some of the hype and magic surrounding Apple's products rub off on its own less prominent offerings.
Hostilities broke out between the two companies last month, when Mr. Jobs announced the music phone at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco.
Cisco, the networking company based in San Jose, Calif., was using the name to sell phones that can plug into a PC or connect with a wireless hot spot and make free calls over the Internet.
The two companies negotiated intensely over the trademark in early January. Executives had planned to make announcements concurrently at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at Macworld, proclaiming the links between their iPhone products.
After talks broke down and Mr. Jobs announced his iPhone anyway, Cisco filed a lawsuit, saying that Apple's use of the iPhone name constituted a "willful and malicious" violation of Cisco's intellectual property. In response, Apple called the lawsuit "silly" and noted publicly that several companies besides Cisco were using the iPhone name.
Cisco's lawsuit described covert Apple attempts to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on earlier filings in Trinidad and Tobago. In its complaint, Cisco asserted that Apple was behind the efforts.
But while they flung legal accusations at each other, both companies faced significant pressure to settle. Apple's iPhone will be released in June and will be available to customers of the AT&T wireless network, which was formerly known as Cingular Wireless. If Apple had failed to settle with Cisco and subsequently lost the battle in court, it could have been liable for financial penalties for each unit that it sold.
But Cisco also faced a strong incentive to reach a deal.
"Cisco had to provide access to the trademark to Apple if it wanted to achieve the highest value for the name. There was no potential second buyer who would have equaled Apple's desire for the iPhone mark," said Alan Fisch, an intellectual-property lawyer at Kaye Scholer in Washington.
He added that Cisco also faced the reality that consumers associated the name more with Apple.
"The iPhone name has been informally synonymous with an anticipated Apple phone for years prior to the product's formal announcement," he said.