Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple 'Pal'?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep.
Maybe Apple is coming out with a TV set for Europe only. Then us American's can complain that Apple never supports us.
theFly
It is indeed, although I guarantee it's got nothing to do with this. As an aside, I'm really shocked and annoyed by this thread. This is the first really impressive rumor we've had all year and no one is even entertaining the idea that it could be possibly for real. Everyone wets their pants over poorly translated French rumors that have virtually no substance at all, yet we actually get some serious looking photographs and info and everyone just blows it off like it's a joke. I don't get it! Arrggghhh
I think it is amusing to prove the validity of something being real or false on how easy it is to fake/make. This is like saying that the harder a piece of music is to play, the better it is. The fact that someone can copy the shape of the logo means nothing. I can trace the apple logo in about 10 minutes in illustrator, does this mean that it isn't a good logo? Maybe logos are meant to be simple and easily recognizable. This also reminds me of how a skeptic will debunk something simply because they can think of one way of faking it.
In an age where we have photoshop, it is getting harder and harder to know if something is "real" or not. Who knows, maybe there is a real UFO on some piece of film that some expert has said was patently false! Remember those damn mirror door G4 shots?! Everyone went on and on about how fake they were, giving all these damn reasons. In the end, all the sane and valid arguments were total BS. The truth is that we really don't know till it does or doesn't come out. Anyway my main point with all this is that I think its wrong to assume that something has to be fake simply because it is easy to do so.
In an age where we have photoshop, it is getting harder and harder to know if something is "real" or not. Who knows, maybe there is a real UFO on some piece of film that some expert has said was patently false! Remember those damn mirror door G4 shots?! Everyone went on and on about how fake they were, giving all these damn reasons. In the end, all the sane and valid arguments were total BS. The truth is that we really don't know till it does or doesn't come out. Anyway my main point with all this is that I think its wrong to assume that something has to be fake simply because it is easy to do so.
Pal is completely fake
I've been looking around at all the rumors surrounding Pal, and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a fake.
I feel I've sufficiently debunked this rumor... I did a bit of a write-up on my web site. http://www.chrismagnani.com/opinion/think/pal/
I've been looking around at all the rumors surrounding Pal, and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a fake.
I feel I've sufficiently debunked this rumor... I did a bit of a write-up on my web site. http://www.chrismagnani.com/opinion/think/pal/
Re: Pal is completely fake
Nice job, but I think that there is some pretty faulty logic on your part. The thing with the box being the same shot as the iLife box, but wiped clean - they are not exactly from the same angle, so he did not start with the iLife box.
Your observations on type are not acurate. The contrast of the grey type is just about exactly right.
With respect to the cropping of the 4 "photos" - I think that this doesn't mean anything either way - fake or real.
I think that if you are going to provide empirical evidence, then it's going to be tough to draw such confident conclusions - as you have...
Nice job, but I think that there is some pretty faulty logic on your part. The thing with the box being the same shot as the iLife box, but wiped clean - they are not exactly from the same angle, so he did not start with the iLife box.
Your observations on type are not acurate. The contrast of the grey type is just about exactly right.
With respect to the cropping of the 4 "photos" - I think that this doesn't mean anything either way - fake or real.
I think that if you are going to provide empirical evidence, then it's going to be tough to draw such confident conclusions - as you have...
Re: Re: Pal is completely fake
Thanks for the compliment. While I might have been wrong about the exact box shot the person used, it is hard evidence that the person who created the 4 graphics did use an Apple photo of a product box.
I have to admit, at the moment I don't have any actual product boxes I can look at to prove or disprove whether they have the same color scheme for the typefaces as shown in the 4 photos. I stand by my observations & conclusions, however.
I never claimed to be providing empirical evidence. What I wrote was that I "have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a fake" and "I feel I've sufficiently debunked this rumor." I am still 100% confident this is a complete hoax, and I do not believe my logic is faulty.
The conclusions I came to were immediate, and I chose to write about them. Further thought (& digging) on the subject:
There are allegedly screenshots of this product that people have written about, yet absolutely nobody has posted these. alleged screenshots. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the same Mac Addicts out there which snagged the 4 alleged "photos" would not also snag something even cooler- pictures of the product in action. Yet none have actually surfaced. Why?
I also searched for the actual logo at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site, specifically in combinations of the word "Apple", "Pal", and "13.01.13"*, but did not find the logo anywhere.
I challenge you to do your own research to either dispute my claims, or to further support them. Until I have been absolutely disproved (which I wholeheartedly believe I will not), I will stand by my claim this is a hoax.
*13.01.13 is a code in the Design Search Code Manual for logos which incorporate "Electric lightbulbs, flashbulbs, (and) flourescent tubes" as a design element.
Thanks for the compliment. While I might have been wrong about the exact box shot the person used, it is hard evidence that the person who created the 4 graphics did use an Apple photo of a product box.
I have to admit, at the moment I don't have any actual product boxes I can look at to prove or disprove whether they have the same color scheme for the typefaces as shown in the 4 photos. I stand by my observations & conclusions, however.
I never claimed to be providing empirical evidence. What I wrote was that I "have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a fake" and "I feel I've sufficiently debunked this rumor." I am still 100% confident this is a complete hoax, and I do not believe my logic is faulty.
The conclusions I came to were immediate, and I chose to write about them. Further thought (& digging) on the subject:
There are allegedly screenshots of this product that people have written about, yet absolutely nobody has posted these. alleged screenshots. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the same Mac Addicts out there which snagged the 4 alleged "photos" would not also snag something even cooler- pictures of the product in action. Yet none have actually surfaced. Why?
I also searched for the actual logo at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site, specifically in combinations of the word "Apple", "Pal", and "13.01.13"*, but did not find the logo anywhere.
I challenge you to do your own research to either dispute my claims, or to further support them. Until I have been absolutely disproved (which I wholeheartedly believe I will not), I will stand by my claim this is a hoax.
*13.01.13 is a code in the Design Search Code Manual for logos which incorporate "Electric lightbulbs, flashbulbs, (and) flourescent tubes" as a design element.
Re: Re: Re: Pal is completely fake
FWIW, I don't dispute your conclusion - I think that it's a fake as well. I just think that some of the assumptions you made about the design, etc are wrong, and as such, don't support your claim.
I think that the bulb represents more than a logo - indeed, I think that it is being used as visual metaphor for the "product". Thus, it is shown being used with Airport.
And, perhaps these photos were taken from press sheets before they were laminated to the board.
There are a bunch of variables that have equal weight to your conclusions.
That's all I am saying. What you have stated is the equivalent of declaring that because something is green, it must be a watermelon...
FWIW, I don't dispute your conclusion - I think that it's a fake as well. I just think that some of the assumptions you made about the design, etc are wrong, and as such, don't support your claim.
I think that the bulb represents more than a logo - indeed, I think that it is being used as visual metaphor for the "product". Thus, it is shown being used with Airport.
And, perhaps these photos were taken from press sheets before they were laminated to the board.
There are a bunch of variables that have equal weight to your conclusions.
That's all I am saying. What you have stated is the equivalent of declaring that because something is green, it must be a watermelon...
I'd be willing to bet a nice steak dinner that even Apple, with easy access to their own product boxes, uses CG renders of their boxes in marketing materials. I've seen a lot of absolutely excellent printing and bindery work, but the "pictures" of boxes that apple uses are far to cleanly printed/converted (folded) to be real, physical paper creations.
Why spend the time (money) to take a picture of something like a printed box that is going to have weird glare and moire problems, imperfect edges, etc, when you have a perfect digital copy of it available? It just looks better left digital.
Sounds like a p2p filesharing service.
Sounds like this "Pal" thing is a P2P filesharing service that is wireless and which allows mac users to share files with each other.
Sort of like greenlighting a new form of gnutella, but like the Apple Music Store, making it a legit service.
IMHO.
(edit
On the otherhand, maybe this Pal thing is a low cost solution people to become their own domain host? Since high speed internet is becoming more prevalent, I would think more people would be setting up their own dedicated computers at home to host their own domains. Maybe Pal is a quick and easy way to create your own domain host so you don't have to keep paying for hosting solutions? I dunno. Just rambling...
Sounds like this "Pal" thing is a P2P filesharing service that is wireless and which allows mac users to share files with each other.
Sort of like greenlighting a new form of gnutella, but like the Apple Music Store, making it a legit service.
IMHO.
(edit
On the otherhand, maybe this Pal thing is a low cost solution people to become their own domain host? Since high speed internet is becoming more prevalent, I would think more people would be setting up their own dedicated computers at home to host their own domains. Maybe Pal is a quick and easy way to create your own domain host so you don't have to keep paying for hosting solutions? I dunno. Just rambling...
ultra wide band bandwidth and strength allocated
Ultra wide band varies from all other spectrum devices that we have available for public use. The main civilian spectrum which is unlicensed is 49mhz, 900mhz, 2.4gz, 5.7, and 5.8 gz these are all minute slices of spectrum, whose power output is up to about a watt. At a watt, if no one else is using the spectrum, it is not inconceivable to get a mile. The problem comes with high density. every 30-90 feet in a city there is a 2.4gz device. You can't hear from the bedroom to the kitchen, because all of your neighbors are broadcasting very loudly on the same spectrum.
This is where ultra wide band comes in. The ultra wide band specification is written such that signal can not be differentiated from background radiation at 30 feet. The power output is extremely low, but for that reason, the signal clarity at short distances is very high. The maximum range is expected to be about 4 feet.
This would be for instance far enough to reach from your ipod to your computer, and from your computer to the hard drives stacked on top of it. But it may not be far enough to reach from your computer to your monitor, and definitely not far enough for a wireless monitor that you could take across the room.
The anticipated initial use of this is from your dvd player, to your vcr, to your receiver, to your tape deck, and if it was sitting on top of the stack, your TV, but that maybe too far away.
-Michael M
Ultra wide band varies from all other spectrum devices that we have available for public use. The main civilian spectrum which is unlicensed is 49mhz, 900mhz, 2.4gz, 5.7, and 5.8 gz these are all minute slices of spectrum, whose power output is up to about a watt. At a watt, if no one else is using the spectrum, it is not inconceivable to get a mile. The problem comes with high density. every 30-90 feet in a city there is a 2.4gz device. You can't hear from the bedroom to the kitchen, because all of your neighbors are broadcasting very loudly on the same spectrum.
This is where ultra wide band comes in. The ultra wide band specification is written such that signal can not be differentiated from background radiation at 30 feet. The power output is extremely low, but for that reason, the signal clarity at short distances is very high. The maximum range is expected to be about 4 feet.
This would be for instance far enough to reach from your ipod to your computer, and from your computer to the hard drives stacked on top of it. But it may not be far enough to reach from your computer to your monitor, and definitely not far enough for a wireless monitor that you could take across the room.
The anticipated initial use of this is from your dvd player, to your vcr, to your receiver, to your tape deck, and if it was sitting on top of the stack, your TV, but that maybe too far away.
-Michael M