I know this because Apple has announced as much. Look at any of the multiple tech news sites putting up comparisons of the services.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386491,00.asp

There was a better one on one of the other sites that I can't seem to find.

Finally, there are indeed people already using iCloud as you can see evidence of here:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/if-you-use-all-your-icloud-storage-apple-sends-you-this-email/

I don't think Google and Amazon missed the boat here at all. I'd say that Apple missed the boat.

Google and Amazon's services allow streaming. Apple's doesn't. Apple's service is just a sync. A sync that avoids the upload and requires the download.

I can't access my music collection from my work computer without downloading it there. In fact my music collection becomes only available on iPhones/iPods and through iTunes. Amazon will end up being almost entirely platform neutral because they have no dog in the platform game. Google will likely try to support the IOS platform, assuming Apple lets them. I'll admit Google's support will probably lag behind the Android support and not be as good for IOS.

How much you wanna bet me that Apple never puts anything out for Android or any other mobile platform?

Apple's entire strategy here is to extend their lock in while fixing one of the annoyances of multi-device usage with iTunes. If they succeed we all lose.

There is a simple explanation why major sites are not supporting RFC 5746. A lot of these sites are probably sitting behind F5 hardware. The SSL is probably implemented just on the F5. F5 hasn't implemented the RFC in any version of their software yet.

http://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/solutions/public/10000/700/sol10737.html

Smaller sites of course are probably just a single http server running Apache. They or their hosting provide update their OpenSSL and Apache httpd versions. So the smaller sites get fixed. Major sites do not.

It'd be interesting to determine how many of these sites on his list are behind F5 hardware. I'm guessing that other load balancing vendors have similar problems, but F5 is the 800 lb gorilla.

The Opera article: http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2011/05/19/renego-popular-unpatched-and-vulnerable-sites seems to make a mention of this by saying that a major vendor will release an RFC implementation in June. But they don't say who this is and I'm not sure if they're talking about F5 or not.

Thanks for posting that. Forgot about the whole Costco copyright nonsense. Sure would be interesting to see Apple try to run with that. Another case, especially a conflicting one in another circuit might encourage SCOTUS to look at that. Of course Apple would probably sue in the 9th Circuit. Ohh well.

Levi's v Tesco is a horrible case to cite for this. It only applies in the European Union. It only applies when the goods are being imported from outside the European Economic Area. If Tesco had been buying the jeans inside the European Economic Area Levi's would have had no case.

Unless the companies running these promotions are in Europe (which the TV station in the article isn't) or are importing the Apple product from another region then the case is not applicable at all.

The case you cite is almost entirely about managing separate global markets with different pricing. It's not relevant to a dilution claim from promotional give aways.

For someone who acts like they really know trademark law you're getting some very basic things wrong on this story.

What you describe above wouldn't be trademark infringement. You could argue that it is trademark dilution.

Some juridictions recognize nominative use as an affirmative defense to infringement and dilution but not all. Trademark law is not uniform. Not only does it vary from country to country but in the US there are even differing state laws on trademarks.

It's probable that if Apple actually took several of these cases to court not all of them would come out the same due to these differences and the specifics of individual cases.

Neither side has a clear cut legal high ground.

Oops, that's right. It's XCode3 you can still download without paying anything. As others have pointed out they're still shipping XCode 3 on the install disks.

Burried at the bottom of that page is this "Looking for Xcode 3? Download Now" which directs you to log into a Apple Developer Connection account, which is free to get.

Xcode is most certainly still a free download. Sure you have to register for the Mac Developer program but that's really not that big of a deal. You probably have an Apple ID already so signing up is just a matter of logging into your Apple account.

http://developer.apple.com/xcode/

"Download Xcode 4 for Free. Xcode 4 is a free download for all members of the iOS and Mac Developer Programs. Log in to your account to begin the download."

Now developing anything for iOS is a whole different ball of wax.

What a load of bull. Persistant bank robberies doesn't imply an organized military operation is behind them. There are bad people, they do bad things. Hacking is even easier to rationalize than robbing a bank, especially if you're not doing anything other than "stealing" information.