It seems that all these rumors about a MacBook Pro Update coming Thursday instead in early March are true. The online version of the Apple Store was down this morning and, just in time before the big reveal, a photo is leaked online showing the specifications for the new 15-inch MacBook Pro updated.
The French site by Mac4Ever (translated link) posted a photo, it maintains that it is the product of the new box 15-inch MacBook Pro shows new specifications of laptop alleged. The latest MacBook Pro reported will include a 2 Ghz processor quad core Intel core i7, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM, a 500 GB optical drive, screen resolution of 1 440-by-900, two USB slots, slot for card SDXC, a FireWire 800 port, a 8 x Super Drive, camera HD FaceTime and a graphics card AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256 MB of VRAM. The computer weighs 5.6 pounds, according to the screenshot. It is not clear what are the specifications for the MacBook Pro 13 and 17 inches.
The box also mentions something called a Thunderbolt, which is said to be using the technology of high-speed peak light of rival Intel that presumably will be USB. The box says this port is compatible with devices and also serves as a backup Mini-display port, rumors that appeared online on Wednesday.
Missing presumed spec is no mention of this previously says hybrid SSD-optical storage system. Under this scheme, the operating system OS X sit on SSD for faster startup times while storing files would be managed by large optical drive.
It is not clear when Apple will open again his online store, but if you wait to unveil refreshed MacBook Pro, you may need to wait until later today. Intel is hosting a press event on Thursday at 10 a.m. Pacific time to San Francisco to launch its light peak technology that is presumably used in technology of Thunderbolt, the new MacBook Pro.
Only a few hours until we know for sure.
Connect with Ian Paul (@ ianpaul) and Today @ PCWorld on Twitter for the latest technology news and analysis.
Apple faces antitrust little threat, the new App Store rules that require content sellers to hand over 30% of their revenue, a legal expert said today.
"It would be a steep uphill, uphill," said Hillard Sterling, an antitrust lawyer and partner with the law firm headquartered in Chicago Freeborn & Peters. "The challengers would show that Apple has foreclosed the market competition."But there are a lot of platforms where publishers can offer their products outside the App Store. "
On Tuesday, Apple unveiled its subscription model for App Store developers and confirmed that it will take 30% of revenues from all content sold within applications. The change also requires that current apps delete links to external purchasing options by 30 June.
The new model affects more newspaper and magazine publishers--who are eager to offer subscriptions to the owners of iPhone and iPad--but also mandates changes long overdue apps like Amazon Kindle. It will be necessary to remove access inside-the-app for bookseller e-Store and offer the same prices for purchases made in-app as it does for e-books purchased through its Web site.
Almost immediately, the questions have been raised about possible antitrust actions against Apple. But Sterling is a dead-end.
"Apple's Conduct, while excluding, not anti-competitive," said Sterling. "An axiom consecrated in antitrust is that it has meant to protect competition, not competitors".
To make an antitrust case, plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the new App Store rules preventing companies to sell their content, said Sterling.
"And that's not an effort. Can offer their products through alternatives, such as the Google Android market, "said Sterling.
Wednesday, Google announced a Pass, your subscription plan for Android applications created by the publishers of newspapers and magazines. A Pass will imitate Apple model in some ways but reported only a withdrawal fee 10% revenue sharing for developers.
A possible defense Apple would add the difficulties for developers thinking of suing Apple, or Government regulators are considering legal action.
"Apple can probably create a plausible technical explanation for its rules," said Sterling. "Perhaps we should say that the products must be properly encoded to operate through the App Store to minimize the technical vulnerability."
Yesterday, Apple does not mention this defence for its new rules, arguing instead that in-app purchases will be more convenient for customers and offer publishers "a brand new opportunity to expand access to their digital content."
For all the obstacles facing antitrust effort against Apple, Sterling believes that the company could be pressed by regulators to change the terms of the App Store. Apple has addressed the U.S. Government's control before, both in 2009, when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) started an inquiry into Apple's rejection of Google Voice app for iPhone and last year, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asked Apple intends to prohibit all applications created with cross-platform development tools.
Apple caved to pressure in both cases at the end giving Google the green light and the Elimination of the prohibition of tools.
"[The Government regulators] may decide to pass, that as a practical matter, can make a judge [in any antitrust case] be more inclined to moderate the rules App Store and host the competing products," said Sterling. ' But so far, the Government adopted a cautious approach--rattle the Sabre and convince companies to reach an accommodation--rather than start a lawsuit imprudent that wastes time and money.
If the Department of Justice, or another federal agency takes this approach, Sterling provides that "cooler heads will prevail," that means Apple would probably back off its current position if pushed.
Even so, it is likely that these concerns do not disappear.
"We'll see more of this, what with new markets such as mobile phones and tablets and with the lines Blurring between partner and competitor," said Sterling.
Gregg Keizer covers Microsoft, security issues, Apple, Web browsers and General technology breaking news for Computerworld. Follow Gregg on Twitter at @ gkeizer or subscribe to Gregg's RSS feed. His e-mail address is gkeizer@computerworld.com.
To learn more about drm and legal issues of Computerworld DRM and legal issues topic Center.
Apple in its huge advantage in the global mobile applications last year thanks to its simple billing system but will most of the Earth by 2014, market research firm IHS Screen Digest said in a report.
The Apple App Store, which opened in 2008 and sells mostly iPhone users, earned more than $ 1.8 billion in 2010 to 82.7% of the total market despite hardware moves from the makers of rival smartphones, according to the report published Wednesday. The total market of apps was worth $ 2.2 billion last year, up from 828 million in 2009.
"Apple ... was able to maintain the advantage by exploiting its ecosystem is tightly controlled," IHS media mobile analyst Jack Kent said in research note.
A "trusted, integrated and simple service through iTunes, billing" is situated in the Centre of this ecosystem, Kent said.
Release of Apple's iPad last year boosted revenues as applications for the tablet that PC cost more than those sold for iPhones, says the report.
But the sharing of applications for Apple's mobile devices declined to 92.8% in 2009 as competitors via ate market. This trend will continue, leaving Apple half the market share as soon as 2014, based on Los Angeles IHS said.
Applications--essentially mobile device software--for Nokia, Research in Motion BlackBerry and Google Android models led the market Apple last year. Ranked No. 2 RIM and Nokia came in third place.
"Apple's competitors, despite their struggles, you managed to do some market share inroads in 2010," says the report.
Android market saw revenue climb a percentage 861.5 particularly steep last year to take share 4.7 percent revenue application store for mobile devices, said IHS.
Microsoft has come to play, releasing the full version of Windows Phone 7 connector for Mac. The software that allows you to synchronize your phone with Windows 7, er, telephone with your Mac is finally out of beta and is available as a free download--and, in an interesting twist, is only available from Mac App Store.
Windows Phone 7 connector for Mac has launched in beta last fall, allowing users to synchronize their media from iTunes and iPhoto latest laptop or Microsoft or--Heaven forfend--a sync Zune HD. DVD all your content or select only certain playlists, genres, artists, events, albums, and faces. A convenient--and, to any user of iPod or iPhone, horribly familiar--bar at the bottom of the screen shows how much space it occupies various content. Plus, you can browse and preview the media that is on your right device from the comfort of your Mac.
It is not just a one-way street, though: you can also detach the Windows phone photos and add them to iPhoto. And, if there is an update of the software available for your phone, you can download and install the software from your Mac.
Of course, there are some limitations. ITunes protected content, like movies, TV shows, and pre-2009 songs can be played on a Windows or Zune phone, so you're out of luck there.
The release of Windows Phone 7 Connector for Mac also marks the first foray of Microsoft in the Mac App Store. While it is not unexpected, development can at least paving the way for future offers from Redmond, including pressing applications of Microsoft Office.
Windows Phone 7 connector for Mac is a free download and requires Mac OS X 10.6.1.6 or later.
I was once in this strange relationship: all we want to do was lie to each other. Thing is, I learned a lot about human behaviour and the tendency to over-complicated your explanation when you know that you're doing something indefensible and for some reason the memory came to mind when I tried to translate the new rules of prey on Apple App Store subscriptions. I'm starting to wonder if Apple [AAPL] has changed its supplier of Kool-Aid and started to transform into Microsoft ...
A quick recap if you missed. Yesterday Apple announced new rules that anyone selling subscription or in-App purchases through the App Store will have to hand over 30 percent of revenue to Apple. Sell anything outside of App Store for use within an application and you also sell it for the same price or less in the App. See: even when you try to make simple explanation is confused, that's because Apple knows it is ask too.
A step too far
Who is impacted? Publishers of newspapers and magazines running Apps, publications of small startups to explore the application as a new form of publishing, Pandora and all streaming services. NetFlix and Hulu are infected, and Amazon will deliver the loot if it wants to keep Kindle on the App Store.
[This story was from Computerworld Holic Apple blog. Follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS to make sure you don't miss a beat].
This is awesome. With a deeply flawed Apple is creating enmity with each organization of the main means of communication; not only this, but it could easily be accused of using its market power to force the services competitors out of the store. Incredibly popular music streaming service, Pandora, is threatening antitrust action. I don't blame them.
Here are a smattering from an article in the Wall Street Journal advertising pro-Android Apple: "my inclination is to be investigated" about the new service from Apple, says Shubha Ghosh, a Professor of antitrust at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Ghosh is questions if dominant market position (as is Spotify we launch progressing--and why?) and if the company is putting "anti-competitive pressure on price."
I don't think that keeping Apple App Store is a monopoly--there are other platforms--but I'm quite certain that new subscription charge will stop stupid contestants. And that smells a little anti-competitive to me.
(Above: CEO Apple launches App Store)
Care and simplicity?
Here is the statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs ' on the new rules:
"Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new Subscriber to the App, Apple earns share of 30%; When the Publisher brings a new or existing Subscriber for the application, the Publisher retains 100% and Apple earns nothing.
"All we need is that, if a Publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the App, offering the same (or better) within the application, so that customers can easily subscribe with one click right in the App. We are convinced that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand access to their digital content on the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch and delight both new and existing subscribers.
Any statement that follows the expression "our philosophy is simple ..." with the declarations of the Baroque in this complexity is a lot of things, but certainly not easy.
When I read these words my mind flashed back to vent ' years in that bad relationship that I mentioned earlier. I mean, I know enough love to know when I was asked to consent to my abuse, and in this particular case, Apple asking all participants in its value chain of the App Store to pick it up as they really like it.
And I am seriously considering a future for the platform in the event that we decide that Mac software to be sold only through Mac App Store.
What is with the App Store?
I love Apple products, over the years I've had a lot of pleasure from them, but it seems to me that the App Store is the focal point of pride for this company. The serpent of Apple that eventually will cast the company in the autumn.
App Store errors have included censorship the wrong political debate, over-pruriginous attitudes toward grown-up games and the long-held public contretemps with Google about Google Voice. These subscription rules join the catalogue of errors.
What I don't understand is why Apple needs to chase the money like this. It is moving towards becoming the world's richest company--even while their labour relations are forced and child labour to some of its production partners. Has billions in the Bank, and while I agree the expenses must be met and the company has the right to strike and to agree on a revenue stream, this share of 30 percent for deploying virtual harkens back to the cost of retail &-bricks. The business plan looks great on paper but the analogy is all wrong.
History repeating
Opinion on what happens to music now as consumer tastes are moved by this property to access. Shawn Fanning of Napster Back in 1999 he filmed labels asking for distribution licenses based on the fact that millions of downloads to 10 cents each would generate huge piles of cash for labels and artists. Labels refused, lost million for file sharing, killed Napster and iTunes generated. Now, with streaming services, labels are taking the Napster affair--you're taking a low income to replay the trace.
Definitely Apple could not have missed this evolution? The company is requesting cash &-bricks in a digital world. Of course, Google friend-turned-enemy immediately responded to the craziness of Apple with the introduction of Google One Pass:
"A system for user authentication, payment processing and administration, Google One Pass lets you focus of publishers about creating high quality content for their readers. Publishers have flexible payment models and control digital content, for which they charge and the content that is free for consumers.
Google isn't taking 30 percent--is resolved to a 10 percent more palatable. Just like Apple should. New Apple subscription rules are flawed.
This is great news for power of Android. Google now may support for so-called "transparency of Android" remembering App Store Apple's greed Services subscription.
We hope that this isn't the start of a series of diktat flawed as the company consolidates its position after a period of extremely rapid growth.
What do you think? Apple is right or wrong? Let me know your thoughts on this in the comments below and if you'd like to please follow me on Twitter so I can drop you a short message whenever you post new articles here first on Computerworld.
