As long as Apple distributes a version of Java, it must live up to its responsibilities to patch that version promptly with security updates. Patching a known security vulnerability 2 months after Oracle did is unacceptable.
I'm generally on Apple's side whenever some media outlet cries wolf over some imagined Apple security blunder. In the past, it's all been massively exaggerated.
However, in this case, Apple really screwed up. They screwed up because 10 years ago they insisted on distributing their own version of Java, and then backed away from that commitment and neglected Java to the point where major updates would be a year late and security updates where months late.
This goes to show why Apple did the right thing by handing over Mac Java to Oracle and getting out of the game of rolling their own JDK/JRE.
Apple has always been quite late in updating Java, not just for major releases, but for security fixes as well. This has always been the case, even when Apple was gung ho on Java in the early 2000's.
Due to their previous commitments, they still have an obligation to maintain the Java releases within that commitment, including...
I'm fine with Apple taking away the optical drive on the new MacBook Pros, but if they reduce hard drive space, that's not going to work with me.
The current specs have a max hard drive of 750 GB. If they maintain this, I'm fine with it.
If, however, this is limited to 256 GB (the largest solid state drives I've heard of), or they make a regular hard drive an expensive build to order option, then I won't be happy.
I want to install Linux on it, and possibly...
I think it's safe to say RIM is at the top of the tech dead pool and will soon be a takeover target.
So will take them over?
Google won't unless they're not allowed to take over Motorola Mobility.
Apple has no use for them.
HP just left mobile and desktop computing.
So who's left?
Microsoft: Even with their pact with Nokia this is still possible, though they would bury the entire software division.
Dell: I don't see how Dell could be even worse off...
First of all, I don't believe software patents should exist. While I'm sure some software algorythms are truly innovative, there are just far too many one-click shopping patents out there. The US patent office is in a clear conflict-of-interest situation, because the more stupid patents they approve, the more money they make. Conversely, the less they look for prior art, the less cost they incur and the more money they make.
Having said that, all of the big industry...