Yes, I am sure that Apples lawyers will..........
............table a motion shortly.
2364 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
............table a motion shortly.
Win 7 Pro is currently available at Amazon.com for $223. Still not exactly cheap of course!
In 2005 iNet was finally switched on and within..................
Of course there are "ifs" in any discussion of future possibilities - I do not claim to have a more advanced crystal ball than the next guy. I would point out however that the reasons why the business market is not yet tapped into in any *serious* way is there is not currently available an os that is *both* touch friendly *and* a serious os. *If* Apple had developed a touch-friendly full version of OSX for tablets then that would be a different situation. If Win8 is implemented properly (yes, there's a caveat because I am not any kind of fanboy and I do not deal in certainties) then it will be the first touch friendly *full productivity* os in the tablet space. Then all that remains to be seen is a. Does the market, business and/or home want it? b. Will the OEMs actually produce kit worth running it on? All kinds of unknowns, rather like life in general.
.............we *may* be ignoring the (possible) 500 lb gorilla in the room because all the (entirely understandable) focus on Google/Android and Apple/iOS. In less than a year (as seems increasingly likely) Win8 will be coming to the tablet party. If we take as a hypothetical assumption for the purposes of discussion that MS *do* succeed in creating a *genuinely* touch-friendly version of Windows that does not kill your battery then what effect will *that* have on the market? I think that the current assumption that this is simply a war between Mountain View and Cupertino and that Redmond will remain irrelevant in the tablet space may, just may, prove to be a mistake. Given what a *seriously* pony os Win7 is as a tablet/touch UI os it is fairly amazing that they, believe or not, actually have 5% of the tablet market today! I think that any assumptions that this will remain a two-way fight are rather premature.
"As we said above, whether HTC, Samsung, and the other 36 Android partners should be placing calls to Redmond to inquire about Windows Phone 7 licenses depends on whether Page & Co.'s assurances are to be believed."
Not quite sure what the sense of what you are saying there is old chap but HTC and Samsung are *already* WP7 manufacturers.
Yes, such choral recitals from a very obvious communal song sheet do have a tendency to arouse a certain degree of (understandable) cynicism. However, it may also reflect a certain degree of truth here inasmuch as they (the other OEMs) may not like the situation but that they may very well understand that Mountain View felt that it had no choice and that (to some extent) it *may* help Google to support its OEMs when the next cloud of sub-orbital writ delivery systems start taking off from Cupertino.
Although, I also have to say that it may very well be that events of the last year (Nokia-MS alliance and now this) portend a shake up and restructuring in the mobile communications and computing market that we might not quite have anticipated as recently as a year ago.
I agree with you. Whilst one cannot discount the possibility of poor judgement completely I have to say that I doubt whether Google seriously intends to shaft the rest of their industrial partners. Any more in fact than it is likely that MS will because of *their* alliance with Nokia. In both cases such behaviour would be unbelievably stupid. I have no doubt that their other OEMs (whether they are Android or WP7 OEMs or both) are a bit nervous but I suspect that both Google and MS will regard it as in their own best interests to reassure their various partners. This has (IMO) far more to do with drawing the battle lines with regard to the coming Patent Wars (Armageddon II coming to a cinema near you). What will be left on the battlefield in the aftermath is not something that is easy to predict.
I may be mistaken but I do not believe that MS presently believe that it is in their business interests to actually *buy* Nokia. Why should they when they can get Nokia's divided attention (given Nokia's situation in the market) *and* that the combination of Nokia and MS have little to fear from the "Patent Wars" that have recently been declared by The Man from Cupertino? Google was in a *very* different situation, a situation where they *badly* needed Moto's patent portfolio, *that* is what this is all about.
You are supposed to repeatedly howl the following:
1. Nokia has been BORGED.
2. Elop is Micro$oft's Bum Boy
3. Bye, Bye Nokia.
Didn't you get the memo?
Memo to El Reg, can't we please have a satire icon, hmmm?
They could have for their own version of the alliance between Nokia and MS. The fact that they did not and have gone for a complete buyout at a premium price per share suggests very strongly that Moto's IP portfolio was indeed a key element in this deal.
"After NoDo was made available, Microsoft took great pleasure in crowing "I told you so" in an official company blog post here. ®"
They also worked with the ChevronWP7 devs concerned in the aftermath to ensure that an "official" fix was available OTA so that those punters who had done it *would* be able to sort it out and get the full NoDo upgrade.
I will try, very hard, to contain my mounting excite.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Given that he is even quicker off the mark when it comes to suing people than The Man from Cupertino, they had better be paying royalties.
........... 30% of Amazon's action is all part of Steve's master plan?
.........Then I am absolutely uninterested.
.........................37% after more than a decade in the wilderness of unelectability facing a pretty unpopular PM in GB does not amount to a ringing endorsement from the British people, hmmm?
.................at least they worked out which service arm they were talking about (ie the wet one) and which country it belonged to. It could have been worse you know. They might have started burbling on about the "British Air Corp" or some such nonsense.
"The SLA does not apply when the service is hit by availability issues arising from "factors outside of our control" – one of the criteria."
Unless I have misunderstood the article this was (I quote) an "act of God" situation which got to be a factor outside of the control of Redmond. They have all the same paid compensation, haven't they? Or have I really misunderstood this report?
I read the original reports in the papers this morning here in Norway and the police were asked about exactly that point and the reply was "it depends on the circumstances". What they were referring to was the fact that under Norwegian law if the police themselves or someone acting on their behalf (in the direct sense) had done this then, yes it would indeed be inadmissible. However, under other circumstances it is possible that the court could and would rule the evidence as admissible although the issue of tampering would of course also have to be addressed. They will of course obtain an order for the backups anyway, part of their problem has been the sheer scale of the crime (in Norwegian context) and the amount of evidence both forensic in the conventional sense and the digital is on such a scale that there is a fair amount that they literally have not had time to get to yet.
Other than FaceBook and Google of course!
This concept of the seamless cross-platform experience where all your devices run the same app and you can pick up where you left off regardless of which device you have picked up is of course (by definition) dependent upon wireless syncing. Now that is fine if you are on your wi-fi network at home or at work. The in-between bit? That's 3G dependent - you gotta pay. Problem with that is the punter does not like paying. Cloud-based app experience seamlessly syncing/updating all your devices on the go is technically easier and smoother but that's an awful lot of 3G time being used and the punter, wait you guessed it, does not want to pay. The actual usage of many *locally* stored apps is (of course) heavily dependent upon being on-line. The carriers are stopping "all you can eat" plans because they do not have the capacity to cope with the demand for broadband that people *are* willing to pay for let alone the extra usage that would enable devs etc to be on genuine earners and they have yet to persuade the public to open their wallets for (plus with the increase in demand that the public are willing for prices are going to rise). Fundamentally what is not being recognised is that this is a *very* tough market where the punter is as tight as a gnat's chuff and utterly unwilling to pay more than peanuts unless the app or service is a major league killer app. Navigating via Google maps? They'll pay for the 3G usage then. Buy their favourite game? That they'll pay for. Anything else? You have to pry that pound/dollar out of their cold dead hands. The problem is that all the *ordinary* punter actually *needs* fundamentally from their shiny is to communicate (text, phone call, e-mail, navigate), in general terms what you are trying to do is to persuade them to *want* more and be willing to pay for it. However at the same time you are trying to persuade them to part with money for this or that, the price of *using* it is going to go higher and higher. The would-be seller's challenge is to persuade the public to pay *continuously* (initial purchase + bandwidth) for something and the public wish to continuously *not* pay for anything unless they perceive an overwhelming case for doing so. Face it, the punter does not want to part with a penny piece and the costs of what he/she *is* willing to pay for are going to rise as we hit capacity limits. How the hell anyone is going to make any money at the moment escapes me completely.
.............is an expression of religious respect?
This would be the approved SI unit for demon-spawn activity?
I'll get my coat.
That explains it. Apple aren't really suing Samsung because of product appearance or anything like that at all. They're suing them for nicking their business model!
.........."spastic dollar key howling" was directed at a certain section of the "cognoscenti" and not you!
Note that I stress *if* it is the case that MS asked Google to get onboard. In that event it makes it very interesting as to why MS (who have more patents than you can shake a stick at) wanted to bid. Was it possibly to checkmate a certain "greengrocer"? It is possible (if this is true - note that I say *if*, so I would appreciate not being subjected to spastic dollar key howling) that MS *on this occasion* got involved defensively and Google *may* have made a mistake in not getting involved.
The very idea that something that has a *huge* effect on the market is legal to conceal is frankly astonishing. If it does not tolerate the light of day then the patent should be cancelled forthwith without further discussion. The very act of trying to hide the nature of the patent should *automatically* lead to it being cancelled.
Yes one does not expect any better and no I am not impressed with Google playing "poor put upon little me". However, this whole situation has spiralled completely out of control.
1. Patents have mutated from being something that protected your invention and the investment you put into it into an offensive weapon to be deployed to attack competitors.
2. Patents have become a commodity in themselves attracting the attention of companies/speculators who have never invented anything nor made any form of product.
3. Patents can be granted for vague ideas/concepts/generalisations which are only intended to plant as large an anti-competitive minefield in the market as possible with no intention of ever actually producing an example of what has been patented. This does not just apply to software patents, we have seen a number of patent applications recently for alleged hardware products that very clearly are the very definition of "vapourware".
The whole business has gone so far that even companies who *might* have preferred to avoid this kind of poisonous nonsense are now forced to join in in self-defence. Unfortunately very little will be done until "BigCorp" has created such a polluted fuck-up in the market that *they* are beginning to take damage *and* the politicians begin to take notice. Shame really because by the time they finally admit that this is not smart, that they themselves are taking long term damage, the amount of collateral damage they will have done is going to be pretty extensive - and here we are talking major economic damage with ramifications way outside their own industry. Anybody listening up there on Capitol Hill or has BigCorp paid you too much to *not* wake up?
........defined as whining? If you as a retailer purchase from a producer on a wholesale basis (ie many units at a time) it is scarcely unreasonable to be a bit miffed if the producer suddenly refuses to give any discount for bulk purchase. Now, Apple are entirely entitled (if they so wish) to insist that they are now solely in the direct retail business (although it would be more honest of them to openly admit this new policy). However, to describe bulk-purchasers when they (in many cases) have been long-term retail partners of the company as "whining" when their industrial "partner" suddenly decides to keep the whole pie to himself or to describe asking for bulk-purchase prices as asking for a "subsidy" is nothing more than fanboism - and a fairly pathetic example of it at that. I am not surprised you posted that as an AC.
............by the company in the collective sense or was it yet another example of a finance director having rather more to say in the matter than he should? Whatever, somebody at least showed *some* common sense.
I would not actually exist were it not for the fact that my great-grandmother (a lady from a family of many generations of seafarers and coastal fishermen in North Norway) recognised the fact that my nine year old future mother was in trouble and pulled her out before anyone else in their beach party was aware that there was anything wrong.
Before I made a complete change in the direction of my life I spent twenty years as a tube-train driver. The stock we drove was from 1938 and 1959, the noise in the cab was unbelievable even thought the "authorities" at the time insisted at there was no problem. It is not simply that "the young" won't listen - employers and others turn a "deaf ear" as well. Fortunately my hearing is not *that* bad and my lady is reasonably kind in putting up with, "what? eh? four o'clock!"
If I end up facing that choice I guess I will have to hope that Nokia have learnt their lesson. Indeed given that they are, for various reasons, reasonably "motivated" now it may be that they *will* have learnt their lesson - although I am not holding my breath. We will see. At any rate given that the very survival of their company is dependent on what they do now I am reminded of a famous quote from Mark Twain about "the prospect of being hung in the morning concentrating the mind wonderfully" (if I have remembered the quote correctly!).
Interesting. I have a gut feeling that in common with the other producers HTC do not release to unlocked customers ahead of the release by their carrier partners in the country concerned to avoid openly embarrassing them. I may have simply been lucky that the carriers offering the Desire Z here in Norway were rather quicker out of the gate than the carriers in the UK with the result that I got my upgrade within (just) the promised time-frame. I have to say that if this kind of malarky where everybody's interest are looked after *except* the customer's interests continues I may end up have to take a look at the "Nokiasoft" phones when I next upgrade. At least then if you are an unlocked customer you get the upgrade when MS release it (at least that appears to be the situation). However, if they are not much cop then I am just stuck having to put up with this kind of crap, sigh. -:)
..........Desire Z owners should get their update by the end of Q2, ie by the end of the second week in July (if I have not misunderstood the American accounting cycle). I in fact received my update at the end of the second week (I am "unlocked"). It is likely that, as usual, the carriers had a fair amount to do with any delay. A great deal of customer dissatisfaction as far as the *timing* of updates is concerned is the result of the carrier's desire for control and their incompetence when it comes to completing and releasing the upgrade within a reasonable time-frame.
"id Software's John Carmack reckons there's no chance Euclideon will run on current-gen systems, but has the potential to "several years from now"."
What could this run on and why are we talking "several years"?
Other than that those graphics are gorgeous.
That may very well be the case. Indeed my impression (I have not lived in the UK for about ten years) of the UK carrier market is that there is a great deal more genuine competition than is currently the case in the US. The problem is that the American market has such influence that we all are in some degree subjected to it. Thus the reason for my "rant" -:)
I speak as a happy Desire Z owner who likes HTC's kit. The problem is that the market in the US is totally distorted by the overwhelming control of the market that the carriers have. This would be ok in the sense that if the American customer is prepared to poke up with this situation then, fine. The problem is that the market elsewhere whether we are talking about Europe or Asia has to dance to the American carrier's tune because of the influence that the US market has. I, personally speaking, am piss-tired off waiting for *my* upgrade (I buy "unlocked") because the American carriers need so much time to piss around with the phones they may condescend to offer. It is about time that the rest of us did not get crapped on because the average US customer refuses to buy their phone on anything other than credit. You can't afford it, don't buy it and let the rest of us get on with our lives. We are already paying blood because of your "sub-prime mortgage market", can't we at least buy a mobile phone without your credit-addiction frakking everything up?
...........in the market place is generally selective for very sound practical reasons when it comes to starting IP disputes. It is very often the case that such a company confines aggressive legal action to occasions where the breach is especially egregious, where the breach is such that they believe that they have a very good chance of winning and where they believe that they risk serious financial damage if they do *not* take action. I simply pose the question. What does Apple's current campaign against Samsung say about Apple's self-confidence with regard to their capacity to "beat" the opposition in the market place rather than the courtroom?
I have to admit I find it highly entertaining that some people feel the need to convert their iShiney into an ersatz version of an NFC phone. It reminds me rather of an incident in Rome in the early eighties when a disco caught fire. It was evacuated immediately and a large number of punters did not have time to collect their mobiles. After two or three weeks there were still half of them left in the cloakroom (very strange given what a mob cost way back then and the high status they conferred on the owner) and the management took a look at them. All fake, empty shells, posaphones in fact. Now what does that remind me of?
A very good point. See my post earlier in the thread.
So, we are all going to put our data in the "cloud" are we? This demonstrates that there is not only a security and access case against going "cloudy", if we do the carriers are going to b*** f**k us financially as well. The carriers will charge us for putting our data up into the cloud, the cloud providers (whoever they are, Google, Apple, MS, Amazon etc) will charge us for keeping it there and the carriers will then charge us for getting it back down. The carriers are doing no more about improved capacity than they can avoid and charging us as much as they can get away with for the bandwidth they *do* condescend to provide. Unless something is done about their behaviour towards the customer the mobile cloud will be little more than a con game directed at fleecing the customer. I note that some have remarked on the obsessive heavy down-loaders (what they are downloading is fairly obvious) spoiling it for the rest of us and I have a certain degree of sympathy with that view. However, if we are "all" in the cloud then we will *all* be heavy users/abusers in comparison to today's usage model/pattern and the carriers will be laughing all the way to the bank. My tip is, stay out of the cloud in so far as you can until you are convinced that the business model makes sense for you as a *customer*.
...............no fate but that which they make themselves - for good or ill.
Perfect, now all the Cupertino Posse need to do is replace all their customers with.........oh ok, I won't go there - the cognoscenti will get all of a mother.
Quite right. You are not supposed to *save* your people, you are supposed to *smite* them. Visit plagues upon them. You know, punish them. Generally make their lives an absolute misery so that they will be grateful for the (rare) occasions when you leave them alone.
Choice of icon? There isn't a gods icon so I figured this one would do just as well.
"Poor grammar is more offensive."
Indeed, but may I be permitted to paraphrase the first line of a song that caused my parents' generation much amusement?
"Chief Franco has only got one ball......."
In fact in recent years it has become increasingly obvious that the Chinese regard their one time ally as an increasingly dangerous and unstable liability. I strongly suspect that China's main interest in NK nowadays is trying to ensure that it does not suddenly implode and they end up with half that country's population camped out on the Chinese side of the border as refugees.
1. It will be delivered at least 5 years late in relation to the original contract terms which they will not be penalised for because they have too many "friends" in Congress.
2. There will be at least 30 - 40% cost overrun in relation to the original contract terms which they will not be penalised for because they have too many "friends" in Congress.
3. It will not perform according to the original specifications which they will not be penalised for because they have too many "friends" in Congress.
Other than that I am sure it will be a very impressive weapons system.