Poker Sites |
Apple Poker |
Apple has released a minor update for Final Cut Express users, the detailed release notes for the update can be found on Apple’s website.
The three main fixes within the update are:
The update is available to Final Cut Express users via Software Update.
I am doing my first pass through this thing and will offer more substantive thoughts later, but one would think that an error such as calling the Mac OS “Max OS” would not have made it through the proof-reading process. Okay, probably petty, but I laughed. It is also interesting that Psystar denies that Apple is a pioneer of the personal computer revolution! O rly? Then why are they so eager to sell its work product? Eh? Come on, denying the obvious is not a really good way to establish believability.
Update: All that being said, after a skim through the entire document, there are some very clever arguments made, and the pleading itself is well-written and thought-out. It is just unfortunate that the glaring proof-reading gaffe was on the most important word in the whole case.
Gizmodo has posted an email purportedly from Steve Jobs in response to a complaint about AT&T not offering tethering on the iPhone even though many other smartphones offer it as a $30/month add-on plan.
The email from Jobs read:
We agree, and are discussing it with ATT.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
Apple has today released ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0 which will allow Mac and Windows users to view Apple ProRes files using QuickTime.
The Apple ProRes QuickTime Decoder software allows both Mac and Windows users to play Apple ProRes files through QuickTime. Apple ProRes is a visually lossless format that provides uncompressed HD quality at SD data rates.
It is an excellent choice for mastering and can easily be transcoded to distribution formats like H.264. With new support for playback on both Mac and Windows computers, Apple ProRes can also be used for review and approval of Final Cut Studio sequences.
ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0 is available for both Mac and Windows requiring Mac OS X 10.4 or 10.5 and Windows XP or later respectively.
I will be printing out the 54 page document and taking a good look at it. More tomorrow or later tonight.
Docket entryOkay Cult of Mac beat me to posting this thought (boo! hiss!), but I am sure more people than just Leigh McMullen and I thought of this today. And Leigh, I spelled the company name correctly, unless there is some pun that just flew over my red-head. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Welcome to my humble abodeSo, let’s pretend that the Psystar case goes to trial, and Psystar wins (which I think has about a snowball’s chance with the Heat Miser). While they say they are not trying to hurt Apple; that in fact would be a devastating blow. However, I do believe there is a quite simple way around it. Psystar’s contentions seem to be centered on the idea that retail boxed software purchased by a consumer should not be restricted to certain machines. Okay, well what if Apple no longer sold the retail box OS software? New Macs already come with the most current OS installed, and Apple doesn’t make the bulk of its money on OS software. So the idea would be that a Macintosh is a completely easy and integrated system to the point of including free software updates to all machines that meet the minimum operating specifications. Talk about “it just works”! Additionally such a move, if it wasn’t coupled with a price increase, would help dispel the falsified myth that Macs are always more expensive. Maybe not though, some Windows users still think that Apple users can’t right-click with their mice. Psystar’s argument all of sudden went puff into the malfunctioning cloud where it belongs.
Another idea would be a software subscription service bundling not just the OS but other Apple software as well. If Psystar wins (doubtful), there will be a revenue hit one way or another, but the ways I just suggested minimize it greatly. Otherwise, there will be a general quality hit with piece of crap clones like the Psystar boxes produced en masse.
Take that Psystar!Now of course, I do not believe Psystar’s arguments, as have thus far been explained, are valid. There are plenty of OSes out there for the consumer, including ones that cost absolutely nothing. Think March of the Penguins.
DISCLAIMER: I am not unbiased about this case. I totally believe Apple should prevail and that Psystar is a parasite with a big arrogant mouth. However, when I write on the factual contents of the pleadings, I will report faithfully what they say. Once the facts are out of the way, and the interpretation or opinions begin, I have an admitted strong bias towards Apple. This is not simply because I am an Apple fangirl but because I find the actions and words of Psystar to be distasteful at best — coupled with my opinion that Apple is in the legal right in this instance. I do not support Apple in everything they do. For example, Apple’s administrative suit against the recycling program in New York with an apple for a logo was just plain moronic. The two logos looked nothing alike, and it isn’t like New York hasn’t been called The Big Apple before Jobs was a twinkle in his father’s eye.
NEW THOUGHT: Could some solution like the above be part of the mysterious “product transition” mentioned in Apple’s Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call?
It is being reported today that the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK has ruled an iPhone ad as ‘misleading’.
During the advert (viewed here) the voiceover read “all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone”.
But today the ASA said that the iPhone does not support Flash or Java so the advert “gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone”.
Apple had argued its claim referred to availability of webpages, rather than their specific appearance.
The ASA has stated that the ad cannot be aired again in its current form.
“Because the iPhone doesn’t support Flash or Java, you couldn’t really see the internet in its full glory,” said Olivia Campbell, a spokesperson for the ASA.
“They made a very general claim that you can see the internet in its entirety, and actually that’s not quite true - so we’ve upheld.”
Still not on the Court docket sheet, but since I am in the Eastern Time Zone, I didn’t really expect them to be. I will check again once the Court opens in California.
As of 2:00pm EST, the filings still have not appeared on the electronic docket.
As of 6:15pm EST, the filings still have not appeared on the electronic docket.
This is making me think I must be doing something wrong, but then again, no one else has claimed to have a copy of the entire filing(s) either with the exception of one blog (unfortunately I cannot remember the name) that had an image of the stamped from page. The stamp leads me to believe that it had to be hand-filed due to the countersuit and such is the reason for the delay.
Check back after 8:00 pm EST when I check right after the Court closes.
As of 10:00EST, the filings have note appeared on the electronic docket. As tomorrow was the deadline for filing, the Clerk will likely have it docketed by then.
[via ComputerWorld]
Psystar’s attorney Colby B. Springer has reported that an Answer and Countersuit has been filed in the case of Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corporation pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (Case No. 3:08-cv-03251-WHA, the Honourable William H. Alsup presiding). The crux of their Countersuit is restraint of free trade in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Additionally, Attorney Springer has stated that contrary to Apple’s allegations, Psystar never modified any of Apple’s proprietary code but did legally modify open-source code that is part of OS X. That is significant as it had been my personal, non-legal (as I am not an attorney) opinion that any such modification of proprietary software would be a strong element in Apple’s suit rather than reliance on the enforceability of the EULA.
However, I have just researched the official Court electronic docket, and no such filing(s) has shown up as of this point. Electronic filings (which are now required in Federal Court actions) generally show up immediately, so it is unknown why it does not yet appear. The source material also is unclear if the Answer is incorporated in the Countersuit, or did they file a completely separate suit (the source material seems to indicate otherwise)? That would explain the absence of any such pleading (countersuit) in the existing case. However, there is no record of a separate action in the electronic database either, at least not in that Court. I have also searched in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and came up empty-handed.
Also of interest, Psystar co-founder Rudy Pedraza gave notice of Psystar’s intention to create a laptop computer able to run OS X at some unspecified point in the future.
On a personal note, is it just me or does that name of Colby Springer sound like a breed? I guess we will find out if that dog can hunt in Apple’s orchard. And…
wait for it…
Apple declined to comment.
Cult of Mac has some interesting examples of other “monolopies.”
ADDED: I thought of a possible explanation for the pleading(s) not yet appearing. Perhaps due to filing fees (if any) for the Countersuit, the pleading had to be filed the old-fashioned way and is awaiting scanning by the Clerk.
Orange (the iPhone cellular carrier for Poland) has denied that it hired actors to stand outside its stores to drum up interest for the super-phone. The original source for the incorrect information was an unidentified Orange employee. [via 9to5Mac]
On another Orange note, Orange in France has admitted that it was throttling its smartphone data speeds at 384 Kb/s. They have promised to raise this limit to 1 Mbits/s beginning September 15, 2008. [via HardMac]
The sad thing about both situations is that Apple’s reputation is affected negativity even though they had nothing to do with the first false rumour or Orange’s surreptitious throttling.
