maximara

About

Username
maximara
Joined
Visits
35
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
328
Badges
0
Posts
409

Reactions

193Like27Informative

  • 2022 Mac Pro said to use Intel Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 CPU

    maximaramaximara
    killroy said:
    Marvin said:

    Like I say though, the tower form factor hasn't made much sense for Apple to keep making it for at least a decade and it makes less sense now than ever with such efficient hardware. Apple has stated repeatedly their goal was always to make the hardware disappear, that's why the new iMacs are so compact. The Mac Pro has stuck around as an ugly wart on that goal for far longer than necessary and this was only due to the failings of Intel, Nvidia and AMD over the years. Now they can go it alone and build exactly the hardware they want.

    I would have to disagree, if it wasn't for the pro towers they would not have the Pro market where I work. The infrastructure where I work requires PCI slots. There's a lot of 32 gigabit fiber-optic networking for video editing and all the apps or Adobe and Avid. If Apple ever put out another product like the trashcan my employer may never approve an Apple  product again no matter what chip is in it.
    That is a very narrow way of thinking.  Not every design is a hit and Apple learned that it was a bad idea as they went back to the "cheese grader" Mac Pro in 2019.
    williamlondon

  • Apple calls Epic Games 'self-serving' in Australia hearing

    maximaramaximara
    gerrit said:
    Around the world Apple is currently being investigated in 8 different antitrust investigations, has already been found guilty of antitrust violations for their iBooks Store in the US, and in 2019 lost a Supreme Court ruling on how the App Store is run (Apple v. Pepper). Epic may be self-serving, but most developers I know agree that Epic is on the right side of this and are hoping that Epic wins. Self-serving or not, they're on the side of the developers. The big question is really if anti-trust legislation will force Apple to change before the lawsuit is even decided.
    Apple v. Pepper only determined the right for people to have bring class action suits and it was a 5-4 in any case.. "Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing that the majority's interpretation of Illinois Brick goes against previous principles and long-standing antitrust regulations."

    The US Supreme Court can make boneheaded rulings   Another 5-4 one was the now infamous Kelo v. City of New London.  All these years later then the promised economic development has not materialized and the city is out the property taxes it would have earned over the years.
    Beatskillroyn2itivguywatto_cobra

  • iMac Pro is 'currently unavailable' from Apple in the US, Canada [u]

    maximaramaximara
    roundaboutnow said:

    MplsP said:
    9secondkox2 said:
    Great. Now let’s get back to making the iMac all it can be. 

    Would love to see:

    1) hefty cpuGPU core counts with architecture improvements. 

    2) massive amounts of RAM. 

    3) ultrawide screen of 34 inches or greater. It’s time. Everyone loves ultrawide. 

    If Apple really wants to make an enduring splash with the new Mac of Macs, it’s time to show the world how ultrawide is done. 

    And while you’re at it... make it touch capable. I’d rather not have to use a Microsoft surface to control concert lighting...

    4) colors: silver, space, gray, blue, gold, green, and brilliant white. 

    5) a minimal and industrial design aesthetic. 

    How about just upgradable ram and an upgradable hard drive (or a place to add a 2nd HD/SSD

    personally, I’d rather not have a touch screen - a touch screen on an iMac isn’t really convenient and just leaves fingerprints all over the beautiful screen. 
    The 27" iMac has upgradable RAM, and I hope the new iMacs keep this feature.

    HD/SSD upgrade without having to remove the screen would be nice too...

    If, for whatever reason, the SSD ends up being soldered in, I like your idea of having a place to add a 2nd SSD. Perhaps a removable panel to provide access to an area that would allow attaching a Thunderbolt drive inside. Or, given that SDUC-I Express cards can have SSD speed and capacity, maybe two SD slots--one external and one internal (you wouldn't want to inadvertently eject an SD card being used as an SSD). Frankly, I doubt either of these would happen, but we can dream, can't we?
    Why do this when you can just have and external SSD that you can boot from?  The is an iMac not a portable.
    forgot usernamewilliamlondonRayz2016watto_cobra

  • Judge rules Tim Cook must sit through seven-hour 'Fortnite' deposition

    maximaramaximara
    urashid said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    genovelle said:
    So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly?  Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it. 
    It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product.  Read the case.  It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%).  CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
    Why not compare it to a game console store such as Xbox. You will see that they also charge the same 30%.

    From the Microsoft store App Developer Agreement (specifically for Xbox games):

    "Thirty percent (30%) of Net Receipts for: (a) all Apps and In-App Products acquired by Customers in the Microsoft Store on an Xbox console and billed to such Customers on a non-subscription basis"


    Haven't seen any Epic Games lawsuit against Microsoft.
    It's not just Microsoft but as Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard shows about the only ones charging less then 30% other then Epic where Humble Bundle at 25% and itch.i with developer's choice.

    Playstion, Xbox, and Nintendo: 30%
    Apple Store, Google Play: 30%
    Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart: 30%

    "s you can see above, a game retailer taking a 30% cut is fairly common - that means if you buy a game for $60, the retailer generally gets $18 of it. Epic’s 12% cut is actually the major exception to this rule, while Valve’s cut gets lowers as a game passes certain sales thresholds and itch.io lets publishers themselves pick the cut it takes.

    Another exception is the Humble Store (which is owned by IGN’s parent company, Ziff Davis, but does not influence coverage in any way, full disclosure at the bottom of the page), which takes a 25% cut but only keeps 15% of that for itself, letting the buyer choose whether the other 10% goes to charity or back to them as store credit. "

    Perhaps if people would stop drinking the Epic Kool-aid and look they would     understand but how insane and delusional Epic's claims are especially when you remember they have a similar lawsuit agains Google.  How in the same of sanity can you have two monopolies in the same industry?  Mono means one.  Sheesh.
    roundaboutnowurashidwatto_cobra

  • Apple purged 94,000 games from China App Store in 2020

    maximaramaximara

    larryjw said:
    leighr said:
    Shame China doesn’t have any laws about copyright, spyware and intellectual property. 
    Of course they do. The law says you need to copy, spy and abuse intellectual property for make benefit glorious People's Republic of China.
    Of course you must be aware of US history on protection of intellectual property, right? 

    The US was the worlds biggest thief of foreign intellectual property until the mid 1800's when some on the population started to create such property that it wanted to protect. On the copyright side, the big reason was Mark Twain. Before that, the US wasn't about to bow to pressure from foreign governments to give protection to their businesses and authors. 

    Up until very recently, the US still ignored many International intellectual property laws. 

    In my recent memory, the most newsworthy case involved a group which everyone here probably is familiar with. Monty Python. Foreign copyright laws protect "Moral Rights". The US never joined the 1893 Berne Convention specifically because that convention offered protection for moral rights of authors. 

    Monty Python got some protection in the US but it was one-off. The material from Monty Python was broadcast in the US in pieces so the full flavor of their antics were not allowed to show through. Their shows were, of course, developed and offered as a coherent set, and in the US, broadcasters didn't honor Monty Python's creativity in how they offered their skits. 

    Generally, the US only desires to protect economic side of intellectual property, and prefers to ignore non-economic principles. The Moral Rights are generally
             The right of attribution;
             The right to the publishing of materials or works;
             The right to have a work published under anonymous or pseudonymous means;
             The right to the inherent integrity of the work;
             The right to the preservation of the work from alteration of any kind.
    Very interesting. Thank you. I am not from the US, but this is an eye-opener.
    Except some of it is not entirely accurate.  The US did sign the Berne Convention but it was the 1971 Paris text.

    Terry Carroll provided an well detailed and "concise" Copyright FAQ with I believe Jan 1994 being the last update posted to Usenet (it was reposted in 1996 but unchanged) to the newsgroups misc.legal, misc.legal.computing, misc.int-property, comp.patents,misc.answers, comp.answers, and news.answers.  The following is the text from that document relating to Berne (edited for line breads otherwise the text is exactly it appeared (its information is inlay out of date of course :

    The Berne Convention has four main points:  National treatment, preclusion of formalities, minimum terms of protection, and minimum  exclusive rights.

    National treatment: Under Berne, an author's rights are respected in another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that country (Art. 5(1)).  For example, works by U.S. authors are protected by French copyright in France, and vice versa, because both the U.S. and France are signatories to Berne.

    Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent on formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).  However, as noted in sections 2.5 and 2.7, this provision apparently does  not prevent a member nation from taking adherence to formalities into  account when determining what remedies apply.

    Minimum terms of protection:  Under Berne, the minimum duration for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 years (Art. 7(1)).  Signatory nations may have provide longer durations if they so choose.

    Minimum exclusive rights: Under Berne, a nation must provide for protection of six rights: translation (Art. 8(1)), reproduction (Art. 9(1)), public performance (Art. 11(1), and Art. 11ter), adaptation (Art. 12), paternity (Art. 6bis(1)) and integrity (Art. 6bis(1)).  In certain of these areas, U.S. copyright law does not quite align with Berne.  For example, Berne requires that the paternity and integrity rights endure for the same term as the other rights (Art. 6bis(2)), while in the U.S., those rights terminate at the death of the author (17 U.S.C. 106A(e)).  The two have been reconciled by the premise that other sources of federal law, such as trademark, combined with the trademark, unfair competition, and defamation laws of the individual states, satisfy these requirements.

    The full thing should be google groups for those interested.

    gatorguybestkeptsecret