Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.
So are you wearing a hessian sack and clogs?
What is wrong with looking good?
I suppose your ideal woman is a 20 stone blimp who wears sandals?
On the one year anniversary of his appointment as Apple CEO, Tim Cook must be partying especially hard in light of Friday's verdict against Samsung. But if his memo to staff about the verdict is anything to go by, in winning the case Apple has lost its soul. The memo, leaked to 9to5Mac, shows Cook is in no mood to play nice …
So are you wearing a hessian sack and clogs?
What is wrong with looking good?
I suppose your ideal woman is a 20 stone blimp who wears sandals?
Yes, the put all their effort into R&D for chips and the grizzy shit that drives phones. But you don't see all of that crap when you're using a phone.
Software is where the real innovation takes place. All those apps and the interface for your phone. It's rather telling that all of Apple's complaints against Samsung where about software, external casing and GUI elements, but Samsung's complaints were about dull shit inside chips that nobody cares about.
Anything is obvious and trivial in hindsight. It's quite telling that Microsoft did their bounceback in WP7 in a different way which is still just as good.
Did Apple sue anyone for the core of the OS? nope, it was about the interface which they wrote. So who gives a shit what the core of the OS is?
Android and WebOS are both Linux based platforms, so is Meego but do they all look the same? nope.
Yes, that was a sweeping generalisation. Like any generalisation, there are always exceptions. Including that one.
But that's it, really. I can recall when people bought Nokia mobile phones above all others, with Motorola as a second best and many other brands hardly ever, yet they all did roughly the same thing. The only reason why the Nokia was bought above any other was because they could be customised with fancy covers and goodness knows what else. The fad came, the fad went. Look at Nokia now!
Yes, there will always be those that buy a particular brand because it does what they want it to do. Unfortunately this is often overlooked by the large flocks of sheep that buy a particular brand because it is the "in thing" and they don't want to be left out. These flocks tend to be big enough that the individuals often get overlooked, so a sweeping generalisation often gets made.
So I don't think that ewe were being specifically referred to by that statement, but anyone wool'd make a baaad mistake like that, given the situation.
"No, people buy these Apple products because they are fashion accessories, and its cool to have a little apple logo on things. Not because they´re better. Is an Ipod really better than a generic MP3 player is the sound any better (hint they almost all use the same chips inside)? The sheep will always buy something that other sheep deem to be cool."
1) There is no company on earth that would refuse to take the money of those "sheep". In fact that is what every company pretty much strives for.
2) A significant part of the iPod's success is the ecosystem, as embodied by iTunes, that Apple has built around it. *That* was a risk that required a great deal of planning and investment., and was the result of successful negotiations with the rights-holders of the content that is sold on iTunes. Be aware that that was no small achievement on Apple's part. (I consider iTunes to be a horrible piece of software, but other people seem able to tolerate it. Maybe they even like it. Dunno.)
3) It is not the case that Apple can succeed with anything. Consider Apple TV.
4) You are right about iPods not sounding better than other mp3 players. (That's not strictly true, but true enough as far as the average or typical consumer is concerned.) But you are wrong if you think that the average or typical consumer buys an mp3 player based on sound quality. If you don't believe me, look at the headphones or earbuds that most people use. And see point 2 again.
"Apple got their start making blue boxes"
Yep. Funny and true. (Didn't know the part about him getting roughed up, though.)
"If software patents were outlawed, these companies would ***gasp*** have to play on a level playing field."
Right. Because if Apple invests the money and does the work and research to create software features that people want, it is only fair that Samsung and anyone and everyone else be immediately allowed to use those ideas for themselves.
That's "innovation and fairness" at its best, now isn't it?
"I'm a PC user, but I like the OSX's menu bar..."
That's the part of MacOS/OSX that I hate the most.
"Why the down votes? I made an informed decision and switched OS based on a practical evaluation. Surely as this is a tech site, nobody here chose an OS because it was fashionable? Maybe the down-voters just didn't like my choice. Any down-voters care to comment?"
I'm not a downvoter of your post, I don't like Apple, loathe Steve Jobs, and I am and will remain an XP user. I personally don't care what OS you use. In this thread I've gotten about 50 downvotes so far and that is nowhere near my "record" for a single post, let alone multiple posts in a single thread. In a thread like this, in which Google, Android, and FOSS supporters are bashing Apple, you have to expect downvotes from those people if you support Apple in any way. These people seem to want to be able to buy products with Apple features at a fraction of Apple prices - and they have a very well-developed sense of entitlement.
Let me put it this way: If you point to a weather report that predicts rain for tomorrow, you will get downvotes from people who think that the weather report is wrong, and from people who had planned to go for a picnic tomorrow and think that "shooting the messenger" will somehow change the weather report.
Ignore the downvotes. There's nothing else to say about it.
I wish I'd said that. Well like Oscar Wilde, eventually I will!
That was a post worth putting your name on.
Yeah, you're right, "nothing could be worse for the sort of real innovation that the world needs" than preventing Samsung from copying Apple.
Because "copying" = "innovation".
"Moron... the triumph of OSX was that it`s a GUI they built on top of BSD UNIX.
Apple didn`t even CREATE the core of their `triumphant`OS..."
And the reason therefore that BSD is not as widely used as OSX is... ?
Oh, merely Apple marketing, right?
I think we all know who the real "moron" here is.
Typical ignorant comment, I bet you're not a programmer or, if you are, you haven't bothered getting past your prejudices to study what Apple have been improving.
"A RECTANGLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS IS NOT TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!!!!"
And the jury agreed with you, rewarding Apple $0.00.
"And OSX under the glossy exterior is FreeBSD." No, no it isn't. Still at least you didn't claim its Linux. *Some* of it is based on FreeBSD, the XNU kernel itself is based on the Mach kernel which was developed at Carnegie Mellon.
"Just because FreeBSD has an open license doesn't mean Apple didn't take it and use it."
Nobody has said otherwise.
"And that glossy exterior? Xerox PARC, my friends. Thats where it all began." Nope. Arguably it all began in an article by Vannevar Bush entitled "As We May Think", but kudos should be aimed in the direction at Ivan Sutherland (while at MIT) and Dough Engelbart (while at SRI) for they really are pioneers in the field. It is fair to say that Xerox PARC made a significant contribution, but then so did Apple; hope you are enjoying your overlapping windows and the content that is constantly refreshed as they are moved...
"So Apple researched, designed, prototyped, engineered, tooled, tested and certified a smartphone in less than 28 days? Right."
And Apple wouldn't have needed to have "designed, prototyped, engineered, tooled, tested and certified" the case, which is the bit Apple copied, and the bit Apple is now fraudulently claiming to have "invented".
@Turtle I'm not bothered at all by the down votes but am curious about the opinions of those that made them, but you're probably right that its the anti-apple brigade down voting anything than appears to show Apple in a positive light. They've probably missed the point entirely that whenever sweeping generalisations are made they're invariably untrue.
I've just up voted your post for taking the time to contribute to the debate.
I think it is as erroneous to say Apple just copies as it is to say they took a risk with iPhone and iPad. They do improve, and patents do and should be issued for actual technical advancements. But they also have a fanatical base. So, as long as you don't over-extend your manufacturing, you are guaranteed to make a profit. Likewise if a product turns out to be more popular than they expect, they can quickly ramp up manufacturing production.
What bothers me about this whole affair is how broad and ridiculous the claims are. I never really compared an iPhone and the Samsung until I saw an article yesterday with the two side by side. Honestly, I like the Samsung appearance better. It is more open and pleasing to my eye than the crowded iPhone. But regardless of which one you prefer, the two are obviously different while using an obvious layout.
Apple had a religious cult following that denied they were a religious cult following way back in 1992 (and probably before). That was about the time I moved to take my second real job and a coworker was constantly going on about how they didn't understand why people bought PCs because Apple gave more bang for the buck than PCs did.
And summed up her feelings as 'Apple are just scared'. The IBM created, Compaq evolved thing seems to sum up how Apple are doing this wrong. I own a 4S and am typing this on a MacBook Pro, but prefer the South Korean judgement of 'Apple infringed some patents, Samsung infringed some, pay each other some money and be done with it'.
I have Apple kit too, but have just swapped my iPhone for a Lumia 800. I'm also going to think before I buy another computer from Apple, a while back it would have been automatic.
But Samsung really are just a cloner. It says it all that Apple's patents were all software and Samsung's patents were all about boring shit like chips. All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics.
Apple's patents were all software and Samsung's patents were all about boring shit like chips. All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics.
You owe me a new Ignorance-O-Meter. Mine has just exploded.
Just give a moment's thought to which is harder to design - some simple apps that can be designed with a GUI programming-client or those vastly complex integrated circuits that you dismiss in blissful ignorance
"A friend of mine works for Samsung and summed up her feelings as 'Apple are just scared'."
There's an authoritative opinion. It must be right.
On the other hand, I saw someone with an Apple device waiting for a bus this morning. They didn't seem concerned.
"All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics."
This statement ensures that your opinion on any and all matters technical will henceforth be completely ignored, as you clearly know nothing.
which is harder to design - some simple apps that can be designed with a GUI programming-client or those vastly complex integrated circuits that you dismiss in blissful ignorance
I see your point, but I think you're too quick in dismissing software in relation to hardware. Each need their own skill set, and in either environment you have talent, workers and idiots.
I would not want a hardware engineer near an application design that has to be so user friendly the user can get the best out of it without instructions(*), but I would also not want a coder near hyper efficient hardware design.
What I do want is them talking to each other, either directly or via a team leader who is at home in both worlds. It appears Apple has managed that, which is *seriously* rare but which has propelled them to the top.
AFAIK, Samsung were in the mobile phone business long before Apple, yet the iPhone created a revolution by its usability (and, let's be honest) it's very good marketing. It was also the first time a company managed to force the operators to share the loot, which I personally found the most impressive feat of all - a mobile phone company telling telcos what to do.
I am thus not on the side of Samsung. Not because I'm an Apple fan, but because I'm a fan of what Apple did, in the same way as I was a fan of the Sony Ericsson p1i because it had the best keyboard ever, and the Motorola V3i because it had a form factor that nobody has managed to better since (even though the shiny keyboard and its crappy software rendered it less useful - it was the sheer form factor and hardware that made it stand out).
I respect Samsung as a company that designs solid products - I almost exclusively use Samsung monitors because I don't have to worry about their quality, I know what comes out of the box will always be overqualified for the job and tends to outlive the computer it gets hooked up to, and their phones are electronically pretty sound products too (I'm not enamoured by what Sony makes of it). However, the Samsung phone struck me as a "me too" the moment I saw it, and so did a number of other ones, simply because of the almost identical form factor and the strikingly similar way of operating (although I wonder if the guilty party isn't actually Google with its Android OS).
I can appreciate they want to ride the wave that Apple created, but I think they should not try to pretend it was of their making - that is really what I saw this case to be about.
While I profoundly, profoundly disagree with this, I think putting technology together is underrated. That's what Apple has done so well: being able to create a completely legacy-free, native platform for smartphones broke a market suffering from serious inertia and interference from carriers, and management-consultant pricing structures that created model names like the Sony Erikson U4410Z. Now you can get a quad-core phone the law of diminishing returns starts to come in (unless you're running bloatware like Android, that is...).
The snag is that it's a riskier market than selling chips. Intel, AMD, ARM and NVidia win whoever makes the best UI. But great platforms take work, and may not get the market share they deserve. Witness webOS, JoliOS, BeOS, Amiga OS, Maemo... A great processor design like x86-64 or PowerPC makes its own statement and can find markets for one-off triumphs of engineering, but a great OS needs market share and years to mature and accumulate its feature set. (OS X took a decade before it could get/licence in-OS Exchange support, for instance.)
"Just give a moment's thought to which is harder to design - some simple apps that can be designed with a GUI programming-client or those vastly complex integrated circuits that you dismiss in blissful ignorance"
It can't be that easy, Samsung had to write a 132 page document looking at all of Apple's iPhone software designs in order to copy them: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/126253497/44_iPhone_GalaxyS1_review
It might not be illegal, but it shows which company was doing the actual thinking and which was doing the copying.
'Just give a moment's thought to which is harder to design - some simple apps that can be designed with a GUI programming-client or those vastly complex integrated circuits that you dismiss in blissful ignorance'
Yes but to make them work properly so they don't crash your system is also an art.
This made Samsung look like a plucky underdog, and will add anger to their 'only pretentious hipsters use iPhones' ads. Apple may feel scared, but they make so much more money than Samsung from selling phones, and it's earned them a billion in damages on top of that. It must be very frustrating to spend years designing the iPhone casing, OS and UI and watch Samsung rush-release a lazy rip-off with the help of an Apple board member, but it makes them seem paranoid.
" All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics."
You have deservedly received many down votes for that comment, but from the narrow perspective of a phone manufacturer I can see why you think that. Most of the innovation is really done by the SoC provider (Qualcomm, ST-Ericsson, Broadcom etc.) and other component manufacturers in the semiconductor industry. All the phone manufacturer really does is copy a reference design from the SoC manufactuer, stick it in a fancy case, and add a bit of gloss to the software on top (the actual low-level software that makes the thing work under the hood is already provided by the SoC manufacturer). With the advent of AOSP even the UI software layer is little effort these days.
"It says it all that Apple's patents were all software and Samsung's patents were all about boring shit like chips. All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics."
If companies didn't keep pushing forward with chips, we wouldn't have the hardware to support such innovations in software.
Anyway, you should really read up more on Apple and software, right from the beginning. Innovation isn't really what comes to mind (make the effort to read and not make ignorant comments, then you'll understand why). They are good at putting things (that aren't necessarily theirs) in a pretty package and marketing, though.
..............the software, the chips are just the mechanics."
That, is without peer as the most asinine comment I have read in a long time.
>> Apple's patents were all software and Samsung's patents were all about boring shit like chips.
>> All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics.
> You owe me a new Ignorance-O-Meter. Mine has just exploded.
As ignorant as it seems there is a valid point in what he is saying. You can't (yet) use hardware without a user interface (personally, I'm hoping my off-spring will evolve this ability). So if Apple can get patents on all the most intuitive (and therefore obvious) UI designs, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the user experience is going to be crap, and no-one is going to buy it. Hardware patents might be difficult to work around and come up with alternatives, but at least you can generally do so, without it noticeably affecting the end user.
Not until she has to pay of the credit card she used to buy her iPhone !
Android = Bloatware ? Funny both ICS and Jellybean fly on my 18 month old single core Desire HD, You clearly have never used Android. But then again how did iOS5 run on the 3GS again?
you need to listen to the mini-AC that wrote the first para and tell the other one to fuck off.
where do you think all this magical software exists?
in the boring chips fuckwit
and are rounded corners really a software feature??
Apple won the case cos it took place in the states where they have the best legal system money can buy. end of
You could have at least tried to grey import an N9 and retain a shred of respect ;)
Monolithic levels of ignorance in this thread.
It runs fine on mine. YMMV
New IOS on an older iPhone might be a big part of why my local iFan defected to Android. New PhoneOS on an old phone was definitely bogging down and making her pine for a newer device. The delay on iPhone 5 just helped things along.
[quote]But Samsung really are just a cloner. It says it all that Apple's patents were all software and Samsung's patents were all about boring shit like chips. All of the innovation is in the software, the chips are just the mechanics.[/quote]
How do you even breathe?
"I see your point, but I think you're too quick in dismissing software in relation to hardware. Each need their own skill set, and in either environment you have talent, workers and idiots."
Yeah Slide to Unlock was far more innovative than any processor
So essentially.. Ferraris are fast because they are red?
Nope.. Still an idiot.
@ Paul 135
"Most of the innovation is really done by the SoC provider"
Agreed. The kicker is in the case of the iPhone that is Samsung :P
"For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money."
How do you know that for sure? Johnny Ive said recently that they don't design and develop their products for the money.
Samsung were found to have wilfully infringed on a number of patents held (validly) by Apple in the US patent system.
Samsung's lawyers trotted out the same old line about having a monopoly on rectangles with rounded corners, even though they were found NOT to have infringed on it.
Samsung were asked by Apple to license the technology/patents. They refused, and so Apple defended themselves. Samsung would've done the same - and, in fact, did, by claiming that Apple had infringed on some of Samsung's patents.
I won't argue with you about the facts of the case. I merely cast doubt on the statement that it was all about values, not the money.
Sure they have design values - that's undeniable - but when you go into a major court-room battle with billions at stake, it had better be about money. Anything else and you risk pissing away your wealth and pissing off the shareholders.
They've never wasted time on a market they don't think they can offer something genuinely new and different in. Samsung are a massive industrial conglomerate that make seemingly thousands of models of cameras, phones, fridges, televisions, many great, many absolute me-too products that seem to have been created with a total lack of commitment.
That said, they're still better than Toshiba, who seem to design products by a checklist of what markets other people have been making money in recently and wonder why nobody wants to buy their laptops anymore.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017