or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by timgriff84

Like others have said, windows although an existing word isn't being used for the same meaning. Whereas app and store are so therefore its no different to someone trying to trademark the name tv store or shoe store, which sounds ridiculous. However in the UK our largest retailer of games is called "game" which too is very generic. So I would say its ok if you can show its recognised as only being yours which in this instance I don't think they can.
I disagree but only because I'm from the UK and things are slightly different. Over here we already have PAYG iPhones but they cost around £500. The data though isn't an issue as you get free data when you top up by £10 a month. This all makes this theory make no sense at all either way it costs you about the same, but in general people perceive the contract option to be cheaper as you pay less upfront. Apart from a different form factor it's hard to see how you could...
All sounds very nice, but as there's no rack servers any more what is any serious person going to run this on? Fine there are a lot of smaller organisations that can get away with having it on a Mac pro. But all companies plan to grow and Apple's currently saying if you grow you need to switch to something else, which makes me wonder why you would invest in it in the first place.If you had a 5 year old iMac or Macbook now then it wouldn't run snow leopard. Some 5 year old...
Depending how big your iPhone is and how many songs you have there not necessarily going to fit.
You missing the big feature though. Yes the new features are already in outlook, and yes after a decade of tweaking the interface they've ended up with the same layout as outlooks had the entire time. But this in in grayscale! Evidently apples photocopier can't do colour.
Well there receiving 30% of the money so they should have some sort of responsibility. Personally I think this is in everyones interest. It won't hurt users having it off by default and its also better for developers. Remember every example like iOCDad where people have there money refunded its being refunded 100% by the developer and Apple still keeps there 30%.
What about all the apps in apples adds that make people buy the phone or the 300000 apps in the app store. Apple doesn't give them 30% for helping to sell the phones. If they did then last quarter each app would recieve $9500
At first I thought this was a bit outrageous of Apple and to a greater extent I still do. But ultimately its just going to benefit other platforms. Apple think they've been clever by stopping ideas of 2 buy buttons where apples service costs more, and by forcing the price to be the same on the app as on a website. But the simple answer is just have an iPhone subscription seperate from the other devices and charge more for it. Keep all the other devices the same and charge...
Is it just me or does it just look like a very basic Mac App? I'm not really sure what there meant to have copied. It's the same kind of layout as iTunes but not identical and everything in it looks like standard Mac UI components.
Still can't get my head around this being justifiable. First the developer / publisher pays Apple to have their app in the app store Then Apple take 30% of what the app sells for If the customer want's a refund on there app the developer pays back 100% of the price, Apple still keep there 30% And now if your going to offer a subscription Apple get 30% of that to The argument for this is Apple is bringing the customer to you, but Apple has apps in all their add's...
New Posts  All Forums: