milo
Mar 30, 12:28 PM
Like if instead of "iPod", they called it "MP3 Player" and then suing Creative or Archos when they release a device advertised as an MP3 Player or called "Creative MP3 Player" for instance.
I see your point, but in that example there were already products in the market using the term "mp3 player". In the case of App Store, was that term previously in use? And by the way, "Mighty Mouse" wasn't a trademark violation, they listed that it was used with permission from day one.
I see your point, but in that example there were already products in the market using the term "mp3 player". In the case of App Store, was that term previously in use? And by the way, "Mighty Mouse" wasn't a trademark violation, they listed that it was used with permission from day one.
Takeo
Mar 23, 05:15 PM
People who speed and drive under the influence make me sick. Pull the apps. And when you catch the scum, throw them in jail and take away their licence. The don't deserve to walk among us.
joeboy_45101
Sep 5, 01:45 PM
This is great; I can't wait to see what goodies they will bring out.
:D
:D
w00master
Nov 14, 12:44 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
peharri
Sep 18, 07:52 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
devman
Sep 26, 01:44 PM
Why Cingular?
They do not alow you to unlock their phones - even after their contract has expired. They think there is usa and nothing else. If you travel - you are screwed - roam on our network (or go to hell)! They are useless for anyone who travels beyond canada or hawaii(ok - thats only 15% of americans)
T-mobile are far and away the best carrier in the US. They dont have the most up to date phones - but they let you un lock after 90 days - and if you speak nicely to them ,(I told em I was going on business trip to Brazil) they do it earlier.
I asked a cingular rep if they had the unlock code for my cell. She said "No, but we have Blue-TEETH" I kid you not. They are as bad as At&T. They are only interested in screwing the customer!
If Apple go CIngular - I wont buy one - if they open it up to tmobile, I will.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2882481#post2882481
They do not alow you to unlock their phones - even after their contract has expired. They think there is usa and nothing else. If you travel - you are screwed - roam on our network (or go to hell)! They are useless for anyone who travels beyond canada or hawaii(ok - thats only 15% of americans)
T-mobile are far and away the best carrier in the US. They dont have the most up to date phones - but they let you un lock after 90 days - and if you speak nicely to them ,(I told em I was going on business trip to Brazil) they do it earlier.
I asked a cingular rep if they had the unlock code for my cell. She said "No, but we have Blue-TEETH" I kid you not. They are as bad as At&T. They are only interested in screwing the customer!
If Apple go CIngular - I wont buy one - if they open it up to tmobile, I will.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2882481#post2882481
arcite
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.... Oh and beat Microsoft in first Quarter profits. :cool:
Socratic
Apr 22, 11:32 PM
seems to me that lots of people complaining about the data on mobile phone issue are overlooking something. When network capacity allowed them to, networks gave unlimited data - then we all got data hungry, killing capacity and forcing limits. At some point soon (probably with 4G) the networks won't have a capacity issue with increased levels. They probably won't go back to true unlimited - they are businesses after all - but we could be looking at broadband rates similar to landline, maybe �15/month for 100GB or so. As and when that kicks in, having a media cloud will be a huge blessing. Until then, wifi users and home users will still benefit.
3G just doesn't have anywhere near the massive capacity 4G can be optimised to give.
3G just doesn't have anywhere near the massive capacity 4G can be optimised to give.
Zimmy
Sep 14, 06:34 AM
i agree i would snap it up the day it comes out..
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
Eraserhead
Sep 26, 01:35 PM
Yea Sim Free is the only way I'd get an iPhone. No way in hell am I giving up my 7 year old phone number. Sim free, stick in my ancient Virgin Mobile sim card and BAM. We have a winner.
You know you can get your number moved to a new network, you just have to ask.
You know you can get your number moved to a new network, you just have to ask.
Vaco Deus
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Let the apps stay.
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
These 'senators' should be working on more pressing issues than this
Evangelion
Aug 29, 05:20 AM
Personally I believe all companies not only have an obligation to go public
Let's just say that I disagree with you 100%. What if you start a small company, should Joe Sixpack down the street have the god-given right to buy shares in your company? If he does, why doesn't he have the right to buy your car if he wants to?
...allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
You do realize that the "fascist corporatocracy" that we have today has been created, maintained and exploited by public corporations?
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
What makes you think that they are not being paid enough as it is?
Let's just say that I disagree with you 100%. What if you start a small company, should Joe Sixpack down the street have the god-given right to buy shares in your company? If he does, why doesn't he have the right to buy your car if he wants to?
...allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
You do realize that the "fascist corporatocracy" that we have today has been created, maintained and exploited by public corporations?
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
What makes you think that they are not being paid enough as it is?
Eidorian
Jul 19, 07:59 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
ethana
May 3, 12:38 PM
I stopped by my local Apple store and had a similar experience. Actually, it was a bit worse... they still had the old iMacs out and when I asked about the new ones, I was told "What new iMacs?"
LOL. That's kind of unusual for Apple.
LOL. That's kind of unusual for Apple.
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 05:47 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
bokdol
Sep 19, 03:07 PM
i wonder how will unbox is doing in comparason. anyone know how will it did first week?
SeniorGato1
Apr 19, 08:23 AM
I think Apple should sue any cell phone manufacturer that uses a screen and buttons.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 11:27 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.I believe this is the correct analysis. I am in full agreement with Milo. Good job M. :)
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.I believe this is the correct analysis. I am in full agreement with Milo. Good job M. :)
Amazing Iceman
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
I guess those countless long nights playing CS have finally paid off.
"HEAD SHOT!"
"Counter-Terrorists Win!"
"HEAD SHOT!"
"Counter-Terrorists Win!"
masterthespian
Sep 14, 11:41 AM
Haha, now you're going to have me thinking about this while I am in mass next Sunday. :p
couldn't help myself.....:D :D :D ...first thing that ran thru my mind when everyone said it's on a sunday....;) ;)
mT
couldn't help myself.....:D :D :D ...first thing that ran thru my mind when everyone said it's on a sunday....;) ;)
mT
Consultant
Apr 20, 10:13 AM
Wonder how long this item will remain here...the one on Engadget managed about 7 minutes. ;)
Maybe it's because the tracking program is only 131KB. Looks suspicious.
Maybe it's because the tracking program is only 131KB. Looks suspicious.
wazgilbert
Apr 28, 04:29 PM
Yes I am. And fairly new to Apple (switched to Mac in 2006 and iPhone in 2007).
Does being new here mean that I have to learn how a corporation that just recorded at record net income of $5.23 billion is "DEAD"? If so, please enlighten me.
I have worked in finance for 35 years and only hold a Bachelors degree in Buisiness, but I'm sure from your response that you (and others here) know more about business than me. So please explain how the earnings report is an indication of impeding doom.... I'm always willing to learn from a group of experts!
Typical Arts student! come back when you're qualified in Science or Engineering and tell us how manufacturing products that are worth selling works.
Even the MBA crowd are appalling at their supposed specialty subject of business - that's just a euphemism for people who don't want to add value to something, but are skilled at counting the cost and value of things and are second only to accountants at removing the soul of a business in the name of making money.
Oh yeah - you said it - qualified in "buisiness" [sic] but works in finance - surely that should read - holds some form of accountancy degree and is an accountant? No? under-qualified then. (or clerk)
Does being new here mean that I have to learn how a corporation that just recorded at record net income of $5.23 billion is "DEAD"? If so, please enlighten me.
I have worked in finance for 35 years and only hold a Bachelors degree in Buisiness, but I'm sure from your response that you (and others here) know more about business than me. So please explain how the earnings report is an indication of impeding doom.... I'm always willing to learn from a group of experts!
Typical Arts student! come back when you're qualified in Science or Engineering and tell us how manufacturing products that are worth selling works.
Even the MBA crowd are appalling at their supposed specialty subject of business - that's just a euphemism for people who don't want to add value to something, but are skilled at counting the cost and value of things and are second only to accountants at removing the soul of a business in the name of making money.
Oh yeah - you said it - qualified in "buisiness" [sic] but works in finance - surely that should read - holds some form of accountancy degree and is an accountant? No? under-qualified then. (or clerk)
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 12:23 AM
she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me.
What if she had decided to not swerve off the road and instead run into the back of your car. When the insurance companies and police look at it, she'd be in the right (and be covered) and you'd be in the wrong with a screwed over car.
What if she had decided to not swerve off the road and instead run into the back of your car. When the insurance companies and police look at it, she'd be in the right (and be covered) and you'd be in the wrong with a screwed over car.
cirus
Apr 19, 07:45 PM
Sometimes I laugh when I read this website.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.