or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by diddy

No. There is no iBooks for the OS - none. The iBook Author program is only for the creation and publication of iBooks - it has no integration with the Book Store. iTunes doesn’t either and I doubt it ever will. iBook Author is not a reader program - neither is iTunes.
No, that would require a Mac OS app. Apple doesn't seem interested with desktop ebook readers.
iTunes is still a fat binary since it has to support PPC.
That would just enable physical support - Apple would still have to optimize the device and test it - it wouldn’t work too well otherwise. It would probably be an addition cost for apple - they likely got a break on the chipset from disabling T-mobile frequencies.
The the patent that you are citing isn’t really a TB patent - since TB is not required nor is core part of TB - Apple is limited to patents that can use TB, but thats totally different from asserting ownership of TB itself. The patent you cite is a cable patent that uses TB. It in no way contradicts the idea that Intel own’s TB - which they apparently do (Wikipedia suggests that everything is owned by Intel). TB is just one means to the end, That’s why Apple has to...
Just because apple uses TB in a patent application doesn’t imply ownership of any sort of IP - there are tons of reasons that it could be in there - as an example for instance. Just because a patent uses another technology that is patented only applies during it’s implementation.Even if the patent is granted it says nothing of the ownership of TB at all IMO. The patent uses TB technology but is just a new form of cable tech. And this implementation could be done with...
You’re asking questions that go beyond the prevue of the FCC. They are looking at the effects of the telecommunications industry as a whole. Anti-trist and collusion are under the pervue of the FTC.
I think he’s talking about retail versions. There are only 3 versions (Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate). The other versions are not available generally outside of OEM channels.
Frame your browser as the mobile version of Safari and you get those pages. It’s all in how the sites are seeing your browser - they do this for their mobile users only. Probably because of screen space more than anything.
Number two is just plain wrong as the cloning era proved true, you should never try to directly partner with a competitor in the fashion that you propose unless you are forced to. It never works out well. Look at Apple's problems with Samsung for example - largely they exist due to the fact that Apple relies on their IP to some degree. The last thing you want to do is create more reliance. You simply do not license out and sell your own property like that - you end up...
New Posts  All Forums: