guet
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.
Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.
The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.
Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.
Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.
The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.
cube
Apr 23, 02:08 PM
I am curious about something. Intel is apparently having difficulty dealing with ATI, which is owned by AMD. Is this a problem for Apple that is limited to notebooks only? It seems like the new MBP doesn't have this same problem, except in the 13" model. Is this problem going to affect Apple's desktop machines? Or is it only limited to the very small laptops and perhaps the Mac Mini? I am just curious because it doesn't appear that the MBP 15 & 17" are effected. I do hope that this makes sense. I have been waiting to see the next versions of the Mac Book and the iMac. I would like to have a portable and I don't care or need a laptop that is a quarter of an inch in thickness or if it weighs a pound more than a Mac Book Air.
Intel doesn't have a problem "dealing with ATI". The problem is that the integrated graphics in Sandy Bridge are inside the CPU, so if you put an alternative chipset with integrated graphics you're paying for stuff that you don't use, and the whole point of integrated graphics is to reduce costs.
Also, NVIDIA is prohibited by Intel to make new chipsets for Intel CPUs that have an integrated memory controller.
Intel doesn't have a problem "dealing with ATI". The problem is that the integrated graphics in Sandy Bridge are inside the CPU, so if you put an alternative chipset with integrated graphics you're paying for stuff that you don't use, and the whole point of integrated graphics is to reduce costs.
Also, NVIDIA is prohibited by Intel to make new chipsets for Intel CPUs that have an integrated memory controller.
Eduardo1971
Mar 22, 01:44 PM
Like Squirrels you must store these "Mac" rumor articles, for the cold, iOS rumor months to follow. ;)
Boy howdy!
I'm a'gonna hold on to this rumour as much as possible....oh man, what's that next thread coming up?
Shucks-another iOS/iPhone rumour!:p
Boy howdy!
I'm a'gonna hold on to this rumour as much as possible....oh man, what's that next thread coming up?
Shucks-another iOS/iPhone rumour!:p
TigerWoodsIV
Mar 23, 05:56 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
Eidorian
May 3, 10:14 AM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:Maybe in 2015. Then again we might be on PCIe 4.0 by then.
TheNightPhoenix
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
Hope you get your iPod to work,
Interesting note, new videos load quicker on the most recently purchased iPod.
For now i'm off to bed.
Interesting note, new videos load quicker on the most recently purchased iPod.
For now i'm off to bed.
EstrlM3
Mar 30, 11:44 AM
Disclaimer: Apple fanboy here. But agree with Microsoft.
App Store is simply the description of the actual thing: An app store. It's just too simple.
Windows on the other hand is a name that wouldn't be used to describe an operating system. Windows, much like Pages, Keynote and Numbers, is a noun used creatively to create a trademark. App Store is a close second but, IMO, fails due to being the actual description of the object.
If Microsoft had called Windows simply "Operating System" and copyrighted that, THEN it'd be the same thing :P
But they are not calling it 'Application Store'
They are calling it 'App Store' ;)
App Store is simply the description of the actual thing: An app store. It's just too simple.
Windows on the other hand is a name that wouldn't be used to describe an operating system. Windows, much like Pages, Keynote and Numbers, is a noun used creatively to create a trademark. App Store is a close second but, IMO, fails due to being the actual description of the object.
If Microsoft had called Windows simply "Operating System" and copyrighted that, THEN it'd be the same thing :P
But they are not calling it 'Application Store'
They are calling it 'App Store' ;)
striker33
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Dont understand the hate for the UB looks, mine looks seamless with the sexy AG silver border. I can understand the hate towards the fugly mirror screens though.
kdarling
Apr 19, 09:20 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
Salesperson: May I help you?
LagunaSol: Yes, I'd like to buy that big white iPhone 3GS over there.
Salesperson: (confused) Uh, you mean the Galaxy Tab?
LagunaSol: No, no, the 3GS. It's right there.
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
LagunaSol: I don't care, it's a big 3GS, I can tell !
Salesperson: Yeah... okay.
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
Salesperson: May I help you?
LagunaSol: Yes, I'd like to buy that big white iPhone 3GS over there.
Salesperson: (confused) Uh, you mean the Galaxy Tab?
LagunaSol: No, no, the 3GS. It's right there.
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
LagunaSol: I don't care, it's a big 3GS, I can tell !
Salesperson: Yeah... okay.
UberMac
Sep 15, 05:30 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
Uber
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 01:42 AM
wow clearly no one in your family should not be hind the wheel of a car.
You all do road rage.
One day someone will pull a gun on you.
Sadly the cop was a crappy investigatory because your mom did an illegally lane changed. plus road rage and really there was a lot of room to prove it but you had a lazy cop and then a mother who lies and teachers her son to lie and pull the same crap.
Speaking of road rage: Recently my Nana leaned out the window of her car and shook her fist at a taxi driver because he accidentally cut her off or something. It was so funny, and it was good that the taxi driver didn't take offense ;)
You all do road rage.
One day someone will pull a gun on you.
Sadly the cop was a crappy investigatory because your mom did an illegally lane changed. plus road rage and really there was a lot of room to prove it but you had a lazy cop and then a mother who lies and teachers her son to lie and pull the same crap.
Speaking of road rage: Recently my Nana leaned out the window of her car and shook her fist at a taxi driver because he accidentally cut her off or something. It was so funny, and it was good that the taxi driver didn't take offense ;)
slavey
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
prady16
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I was just watching the Bill Gates interview on 'The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch' on CNBC and when asked by Donny "What do you carry in your wallet and whats on your ipod?", he replied:
"I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)
Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?
"I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)
Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 06:45 PM
Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
milo
Sep 13, 09:16 AM
I have never been more happy to be proven wrong. But now: Steve has been lying to us about the capabilities of this great iPod 5G for nearly a year now, just so we wouldn't anticipate the iTunes Movie Store.
Lying? Come on. It already supported 640 in mpeg4, he never said it couldn't support other resolutions in the future with a firmware/software update. Did he ever say, "The hardware makes it impossible to ever support 640 with h.264"? No.
Lying? Come on. It already supported 640 in mpeg4, he never said it couldn't support other resolutions in the future with a firmware/software update. Did he ever say, "The hardware makes it impossible to ever support 640 with h.264"? No.
DeeEss
Mar 30, 01:03 PM
What a cunning linguist he or she would be.
:)
:)
toddybody
Apr 22, 12:49 PM
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Thats what I'm thinking...hoping to grab a 13 at ~1000/1100 on Amazon.
Thats what I'm thinking...hoping to grab a 13 at ~1000/1100 on Amazon.
jb510
Apr 22, 04:23 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)
I do want this but, i actually want wireless sync more. And some other things i cant really think of at the moment. Maybe iOS5 :/
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
I do want this but, i actually want wireless sync more. And some other things i cant really think of at the moment. Maybe iOS5 :/
I could care less about cloud based streaming.... I'm far more interested in cloud sync'ing.
Also just because Amazon requires users upload files doesn't mean they can't do deduplication across accounts similar to DropBox and others. It's still just a file storage service and I can see no reason they'd need licenses from industry.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
OdduWon
Sep 27, 12:25 AM
You're joking right? You realise these are pipe-dream mock ups right?
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
magbarn
Apr 23, 09:15 AM
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
God why don't people research, unless apple decides to not skip directly to ivy bridge, you will NOT get the same intel sb igp as the mbp 13, instead you will get one that's at least 20-30% slower. Something's had to give to get the 35w tdp on the sb mbp cpus down to the 25w/17w level.
God why don't people research, unless apple decides to not skip directly to ivy bridge, you will NOT get the same intel sb igp as the mbp 13, instead you will get one that's at least 20-30% slower. Something's had to give to get the 35w tdp on the sb mbp cpus down to the 25w/17w level.
adamfilip
Aug 28, 02:07 PM
from what ive read the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo isnt much
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
seashellz
Sep 11, 01:56 PM
Macbook (with Leopard) in late Spring for me!
(thats when APPLE usually refresh their models)
(thats when APPLE usually refresh their models)
cwt1nospam
Jan 2, 02:04 PM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
No comments:
Post a Comment