rmwebs
Apr 28, 04:23 PM
Another nickel in the bank.
Image (http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/9/129023086802465617.jpg)
You do realize that this image could end up biting Apple in the butt? In 3 years time the iPad will be where the iPhone is now: Loosing some (not all) of its marketshare to the knockoffs.
Unless Apple has a new iToy (I.e not an MP3 player, phone or tablet) ready for say 3-4 years from now, they wont get any bigger than they now are.
Image (http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/9/129023086802465617.jpg)
You do realize that this image could end up biting Apple in the butt? In 3 years time the iPad will be where the iPhone is now: Loosing some (not all) of its marketshare to the knockoffs.
Unless Apple has a new iToy (I.e not an MP3 player, phone or tablet) ready for say 3-4 years from now, they wont get any bigger than they now are.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Peace
Aug 28, 09:57 PM
Will an Apple Retail store upgrade your cpu? What's the cost to have this done without a warranty void?
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
Think you'd need a new logic board for that.The current Intel iMac's have a 667MHz FSB.The E6600 has a 1066MHz FSB.Compatability problems there.
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
Think you'd need a new logic board for that.The current Intel iMac's have a 667MHz FSB.The E6600 has a 1066MHz FSB.Compatability problems there.
rmitchell
Sep 13, 10:43 PM
Yes, it was the "pre-announcement" that I find very un-Apple. The fact that the product doesn't have a solid name just adds to the strangeness. Is there a precedent for this at Apple announcements. Sure, I've heard of products that I couldn't go out and get today or even for 4 weeks, but Q1 2007?
This seems to me the "plan b" that had to get announced because the real "one more thing", out of left field announcement, hit a snag.
Maybe it wasn't the iPhone, but something didn't go exactly a planned on the 12th.
Anyone hear how they liked the satcast of the keynote in London?
That is actually a very intutive outlook on the apple annoucement.
Quite Intersting
Rob
This seems to me the "plan b" that had to get announced because the real "one more thing", out of left field announcement, hit a snag.
Maybe it wasn't the iPhone, but something didn't go exactly a planned on the 12th.
Anyone hear how they liked the satcast of the keynote in London?
That is actually a very intutive outlook on the apple annoucement.
Quite Intersting
Rob
kavika411
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Newbie question - please don't flame me.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
FlyNolJ
Sep 12, 05:16 PM
Christ, a $50 dollar price cut is a year of innovation? WOW.
valiar
Sep 22, 03:14 AM
Not sure if anyone will read my post after 8 pages...
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam. :mad:
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam. :mad:
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:59 AM
This has nothing to do with GPS or Location Services and turning those off won't change that. It also has nothing to do with tracking your whereabouts.
The file contains a log of the cell towers you connected to and when. That's it. This is why the dots are in grids that get bigger the as you leave populated areas and routinely include places you haven't been within 30 miles of.
This information is most likely used for connection quality monitoring and caching for Assisted GPS cold starts. It is also the same information stored by your cell phone provider no matter what phone you use. As such, "Big Brother" already has the ability to access to this information.
At this point, the only person potentially aided by this discovery is a suspicious spouse.
This is what I'm thinking; just need to wait to see what else comes out.
The file contains a log of the cell towers you connected to and when. That's it. This is why the dots are in grids that get bigger the as you leave populated areas and routinely include places you haven't been within 30 miles of.
This information is most likely used for connection quality monitoring and caching for Assisted GPS cold starts. It is also the same information stored by your cell phone provider no matter what phone you use. As such, "Big Brother" already has the ability to access to this information.
At this point, the only person potentially aided by this discovery is a suspicious spouse.
This is what I'm thinking; just need to wait to see what else comes out.
Popeye206
Apr 22, 08:58 AM
How about this:
When you are born, you are given, in effect a serial number. which is yours as a human being for life.
When you buy any digital media, this is linked to our number for life.
This means for as long as you live, and whatever device you buy, you can access this media always.
So I buy and iPad and I pay for the "RIGHTS" to watch/own a movie.
I have paid my money and now that movie is mine to watch any time in the future on whatever device I buy in the future.
Wow... I want what you're drinking! :p
BTW... sort of what you described, minus the tattoo on your forehead, is called an iTunes account with a cloud service. :rolleyes:
When you are born, you are given, in effect a serial number. which is yours as a human being for life.
When you buy any digital media, this is linked to our number for life.
This means for as long as you live, and whatever device you buy, you can access this media always.
So I buy and iPad and I pay for the "RIGHTS" to watch/own a movie.
I have paid my money and now that movie is mine to watch any time in the future on whatever device I buy in the future.
Wow... I want what you're drinking! :p
BTW... sort of what you described, minus the tattoo on your forehead, is called an iTunes account with a cloud service. :rolleyes:
Lukeyy19
Apr 4, 12:31 PM
i honestly can't understand people who say there was no need to kill him, he was armed and shot at the security guard.
A criminal shoots at a security guard who is just doing his job of protecting the public? and a Security Guard shoots at a criminal who is shooting at him, endangering the public and stealing, and somehow the Security Guard is the bad guy here?
this criminal had no respect or regard for anyone but himself, he was a CRIMINAL, that was his choice to make, if he'd of made a better choice, he'd still be alive.
If the Security Guard had of made a different choice he may not still be alive.
it's just like the whole Raoul Moat thing here in the UK, he killed I don't know how many people, injured others, shot a Police Officer in the face with a shotgun, and people still said it was wrong to kill him, SERIOUSLY!
I say well done to the Security Guard, i just hope he is commentated for doing the right thing, and lives the rest of his life peacefully.
A criminal shoots at a security guard who is just doing his job of protecting the public? and a Security Guard shoots at a criminal who is shooting at him, endangering the public and stealing, and somehow the Security Guard is the bad guy here?
this criminal had no respect or regard for anyone but himself, he was a CRIMINAL, that was his choice to make, if he'd of made a better choice, he'd still be alive.
If the Security Guard had of made a different choice he may not still be alive.
it's just like the whole Raoul Moat thing here in the UK, he killed I don't know how many people, injured others, shot a Police Officer in the face with a shotgun, and people still said it was wrong to kill him, SERIOUSLY!
I say well done to the Security Guard, i just hope he is commentated for doing the right thing, and lives the rest of his life peacefully.
luminosity
Sep 19, 02:18 PM
it's not just new tv downloads, but also old tv show downloads that were bumped up.
spicyapple
Sep 9, 01:38 AM
Is 20% speed improvement a lot for a core 2 designation?
donlphi
Sep 5, 04:18 PM
Does anybody think there will be a blu-ray announcement?
I know Sony is running a bit slow, but how great would it be to actually burn your HD Movies onto a Blu-Ray Disc for storage?
I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice.
I know Sony is running a bit slow, but how great would it be to actually burn your HD Movies onto a Blu-Ray Disc for storage?
I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice.
TheKrillr
Sep 12, 02:22 PM
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
Make sure your iPod got updated to software revision 1.2, and that you're using iTunes 7.0.
Make sure your iPod got updated to software revision 1.2, and that you're using iTunes 7.0.
ECUpirate44
Mar 29, 11:32 AM
Windows 7 kicks ass, it's every bit as good as Snow Leopard if not better.
When Windows starts to come close to SL in terms of ease of use and functionality let me know ;)
When Windows starts to come close to SL in terms of ease of use and functionality let me know ;)
Satori
Apr 19, 08:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
MacRumors
Sep 14, 08:02 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Macworld has received an invitation to an Apple special event (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php) on September 25th, right before Photokina. Indications from the invitation are an Aperture-related announcement. An Aperture update had previously been rumored on page 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060822235447.shtml).
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/1/1b/Photokina.jpg
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_To_Hold_Sept_24th_Special_Event_Photokina)
Macworld has received an invitation to an Apple special event (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php) on September 25th, right before Photokina. Indications from the invitation are an Aperture-related announcement. An Aperture update had previously been rumored on page 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060822235447.shtml).
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/1/1b/Photokina.jpg
Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_To_Hold_Sept_24th_Special_Event_Photokina)
fredoviola
Apr 4, 11:48 AM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I agree. Incredibly sad. :(
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I agree. Incredibly sad. :(
DPazdanISU
Sep 14, 07:15 AM
I just posted earlier today about how I was waiting for the Apple iPhone to upgrade my RAZR... but honestly thats it?
I feel like the only one who looks at that design and says "blah". Its a horrible design for a phone. Its a nano with a bigger screen. Thats it. There are 1000 phones out there now that look just like this.
I can't believe this is what we've been waiting for years and god knows how much in R&D for?
I'm a much bigger fan of the iChat Mobile. (I know its fake but its a much better idea than this. Granted it needs some work too...)
http://idisk.mac.com/mox358/Public/ichat_mobile.jpg
apple makes its hardware designs simple and elegant, that is how they will make their cell phone, simple and elegant. While it may look very similar to other cellphones the software and the capabilities will be next to none. Try for instance "livingston" a technology apple has where you click and drag an app or widget onto a mobile device (in this case cell phone). Think of the implications of being able to bring what you were working on with you on your cell phone and be able to alter it
apple isn't doing good b/c of how their computers look (you can find others that look just like macs but still suck the big one)
I feel like the only one who looks at that design and says "blah". Its a horrible design for a phone. Its a nano with a bigger screen. Thats it. There are 1000 phones out there now that look just like this.
I can't believe this is what we've been waiting for years and god knows how much in R&D for?
I'm a much bigger fan of the iChat Mobile. (I know its fake but its a much better idea than this. Granted it needs some work too...)
http://idisk.mac.com/mox358/Public/ichat_mobile.jpg
apple makes its hardware designs simple and elegant, that is how they will make their cell phone, simple and elegant. While it may look very similar to other cellphones the software and the capabilities will be next to none. Try for instance "livingston" a technology apple has where you click and drag an app or widget onto a mobile device (in this case cell phone). Think of the implications of being able to bring what you were working on with you on your cell phone and be able to alter it
apple isn't doing good b/c of how their computers look (you can find others that look just like macs but still suck the big one)
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:13 PM
Go back five years. I tell you "Someone told me that I should use iMovie to edit the movies that I made with my video camera. Where can I buy it"? You say: "You should go to an app store". I say "What on earth is an app store?"
No, that wouldn't have happened. You would have said "You should go to a computer store". "You might try a games store, they might have it". You would never have said "You should go to an app store".
You would not have said "What on earth is an app store?". You would have said "Where is it?" because you would have known it is a place that sells apps/applications. Why? Because it is descriptive. And that is the point of the argument.
No, that wouldn't have happened. You would have said "You should go to a computer store". "You might try a games store, they might have it". You would never have said "You should go to an app store".
You would not have said "What on earth is an app store?". You would have said "Where is it?" because you would have known it is a place that sells apps/applications. Why? Because it is descriptive. And that is the point of the argument.
Dagless
Apr 28, 07:53 PM
LOL @ all the people claiming Microsoft is dead. I mean, seriously? They were $76 million worse off from Apple and according to most people on this forum, Microsoft aren't pulling their socks up and trying and innovating anymore. I don't think that is at all bad at all. Lazing around and still making a profit at the end of the day.
Makes you slightly embarrassed to be an Apple user doesn't it?
Makes you slightly embarrassed to be an Apple user doesn't it?
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:33 AM
Wait, my location services are off....and so is find my iphone.
So Im not being tracked, right?
Some say yes, some say no. We'll wait and see if the data is actually stored.
So Im not being tracked, right?
Some say yes, some say no. We'll wait and see if the data is actually stored.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
applebro24
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Come on Mac Mini update; well overdue for a refresh. That Core 2 Duo is keeping me from buying.