Slashdot Mirror

>> Computers long ago reached the point
>> where they were fast enough...

> For you, maybe - but not for everyone.

Walt Mossberg: "Do you think the tablet will succeed the laptop?"

Steve Jobs: "When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks, because that's what you needed on the farm. But as vehicles started to be used in the urban centers, cars got more popular. Innovations like automatic transmission and power steering and things that you didn't care about in a truck as much started to become paramount in cars... PCs are going to be like trucks. They're still going to be around, they're still going to have a lot of value, but they're going to be used by one out of X people."

http://allthingsd.com/20100601/steve-jobs-session/

YAMU
Physically Together: Here's the Internal Yahoo No-Work-From-Home Memo for Remote Workers and Maybe More
http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/

âoePhysically Togetherâ: Hereâ(TM)s the Internal Yahoo No-Work-From-Home Memo for Remote Workers and Maybe More is an followup to TFA.

If it gets taken down, here's some key phrases to search for:

"With the introduction of initiatives like FYI, Goals and PB&J, we want everyone to participate"

"for the rest of us who occasionally have to stay home for the cable guy, please use your best judgment in the spirit of collaboration"

Comment: BP&J? Please tell me this has nothing to do with sandwiches.

look exactly the same...

According this service mark, no, they don't, so there shouldn't be any conflicts. As the service mark says, it must be considered in whole, not in part, and the Microsoft stores do not demonstrate all of the aspects detailed in Apple's service mark.

Moreover, if they did demonstrate everything in Apple's service mark, wouldn't that be a compelling argument for why Apple should be filing this sort of paperwork in the first place? After all, they have a brand to protect, and part of that is ensuring that others can't mislead customers into confusing their brand with another. It's fairly obvious that Microsoft's retail stores have drawn quite a bit of inspiration from Apple's, but a lot of other stores have outright ripped off Apple (e.g. the fake Apple stores in China, as well as some apparently-less-than-reputable Apple dealers).

Of course, this service mark won't stop everything that has an Apple air about it from being used. For instance, it wouldn't have done anything to prevent Samsung from using iOS app icons in their retail store.

Unlike an iOS5 user, I have working maps. With traffic.

Do you mean *like* an iOS5 user?

Google Maps for iPhone Returns Better Than Ever

On Google images. Describes the situation perfectly I think.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2010/02/baby-150x150.jpg

"I didn't say that, I said the goal is not to make profit. In fact how about "preserve future profits".

So you didn't say the goal of a company is not to make a profit but you said it is not to make a profit?

And strangely enough, they seem to be growing profitabilty,,,,Are you suggesting that Apple won't see year over year growth in 2013? 2014? 2015?

"Your right growing revenues "unprofitably" is not a recipe for success [its not true]"

So, if they grew revenue by adding MMI and MMI is losing money, what is that if not growing revenue unprofitably?

"The fact that it is affecting third party development support is a simply another sign."

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/12/20/google-play-grows-app-store-king/

" Because right now I see Google investing in their future"

You obviously haven't looked at Apple's long term capital expenditures,,,,

"The Motorola deal cuts their tax bill because Google is vastly profitable :)"

You get "tax breaks" on losses. Losing money to pay less taxes is not a "strategy".

"Since when did selling one million devices a month become a bad thing :"

http://allthingsd.com/20120711/googles-nexus-7-costs-152-to-make-ihs-isuppli-teardown-finds/

And it sells for $199. Of course Asus doesn't make the whole $58 per device, they sell it at a discount to wholesellers.

"The reality is companies make massive profits from Android phones...don't pretend otherwise"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/us-google-motorola-idUSBRE8930L020121004

"Google Inc raised its estimate of the cost of job cuts at its money-losing Motorola Mobility unit in the third quarter and warned of "significant" additional charges from further restructuring."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578043782276831090.html

"HTC Profit Falls 79% Amid Competition "

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/23/sony-mobile-to-lay-off-off-1000-people-as-part-of-restructuring/

"Today, Android OEM Sony announced that its loss-making mobile handset division Sony Mobile Communications would be laying out 15% of its workforce "

LG's profit is far from massive....
http://bgr.com/2012/10/24/lg-q3-2012-earnings-138-6-million-dollars/

So where are all of these Android manufacturers that are making tons of profits?

Apple accounts for 60% of the profit in the mobile industry.

http://www.intomobile.com/2012/11/14/asymco-apple-and-samsung-account-99-smartphone-profits-q3-htc-and-lg-only-other-profitable-companies/

"You need to make up your mind what you are arguing with Apples store. I have one point, Apples pursuit of Profits over market share is stupid, "

So, if it were stupid, then how does it make 60% of all mobile profit?

"It also means less money from its store."

Facts are your friends.....
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/12/20/google-play-grows-app-store-king/

"Apple does not make an awful lot of money from the computer market."

So which PC company makes more money selling computers than Apple makes selling Macs?

" I notice that the Chromebook is the best selling device on Amazon."

Yes and Amaz

what i got from the article,
he would like us to continue to be enslaved by "social norms" by being punished for brandishing a position that may widely differ from the norm. Being as we are in a "normal" society and are judged for thinking "abnormally", tying anonymity to abnormal behavior is just a way to enforce entrenched behaviors.
i for one applaud Anonymity online.
case: http://allthingsd.com/20121224/china-poised-for-crackdown-on-internet/

Android can't even put more than one application on the screen. I have a Nexus 7 tablet, whose 7 inch, 1280x800 pixel screen is bigger than the screens of two 4.3" phones side by side.

Its not something anyone want on a small screen device [a must have on a large screen I can see why Windows 8 users are upset], Although if you really require such functionality its available on the samsung 10" tablet. http://allthingsd.com/20120815/new-samsung-tablet-offers-a-stylus-and-a-split-screen/

But this post has nothing to so with mine [or the whole thread], it does demonstrate how versatile Android is. Like I say personally I want touch-screen chromebook running Debian derivative with Android compatibility...and I would want that as you describe...but as for your off topic post on a 7" its a little silly.

I found some data points at 24 and 48 hours after the initial release of iOS6 and another after a week. First, a broad statement which seems a little like speculation:

"..within the first day, iOS 6 peaked at more than 15 percent of Web traffic to its mobile ad network.."

Then something that seems more like data that isn't going away:

iOS 6 on 25% of iOS Devices 48 Hours After Public Release

And finally:

iOS 6 Adoption At Just Over One Week: 60% For iPhone And 41% For iPad"

> Old Jobs hasn't been in the ground long and already their first
> "convenience over QC" choice has come back to bite them.

Steve Jobs did a lot of great things but he also shipped plenty of crap. .Mac and MobileMe were (I think) the biggest and most recent examples. 2008:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs conceded in an e-mail to Apple employees that the company had made numerous mistakes during the launch of its MobileMe Internet service, saying that the service âoewas simply not up to Apple's standardsâ and that it "clearly needed more time and testing."

http://www.macworld.com/article/1134854/jobs.html

More than anything, I'm surprised they did ship Maps with such a recent bad experience under their belts. They must have been desperate. The move away from Google was about more than branding.

Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn't happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude. Again, Apple declined.

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crashed-over-voice-guided-directions/

Say what you will about Apple -- they've been very good about not handing over user data to advertisers, app creators, or publishers.

There was no tantrum, just a web sites 'report'. Samsung must've thrown a tantrum to get the iPhone 5 added

http://allthingsd.com/20121123/samsung-wants-ipad-mini-added-to-apple-suit/

Then another to go after the other devices?

No of course not. Come on /. You're trolling your own readers now

Yeah we do. I can understand HTC and Apple wanting confidentiality, there's all sorts of confidentiality clauses and Samsung seemed happy at first with the redacted document. Clearly the judge isn't and has ordered this limited disclosure.

It looks like HTC asked for the redactions and Samsung accepted.

"HTC has advised the parties that it is willing to acquiesce to Apple’s production of the agreement on two conditions: (1) the Agreement must be marked Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order; and (2) the consideration amount must be redacted," Apple said, "Samsung has agreed to both conditions."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/21/apple_redacted_agreement_samsung/

Sadly no source from The Registers article. Afterwards Samsung asked to see the whole thing.

http://allthingsd.com/20121121/apple-happy-to-redact-htc-deal-down-to-33-words-just-for-samsung/

Now it looks like Samsung gets to see the whole document "without delay" now that the judge has ordered it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE8AL04020121122

Then what damages does Apple deserve for what Samsung did?

Should it be ok for one company to do this to another?

http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone/

I'd be angry if some company did that to me. Google warned them:

http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/

What justifies, "and rightfully so?"

Steve Sinofsky, the "brains" behind Windows 8, has just been given the boot.

Gee... one wonders why.

http://allthingsd.com/20121112/breaking-windows-head-steven-sinofsky-to-leave-microsoft/

Windows unit president Steven Sinofsky is leaving the company, effective immediately, AllThingsD has confirmed.

The move comes less than a month after Sinofsky presided over the launch of Windows 8 and Microsoftâ(TM)s Surface tabletâ"products seen as key to the future if the PC software pioneer is to retain its position amid a market increasingly dominated by phones and tablets.

Sources have said the move came amid growing tension between Sinofsky and other top executives. Sinofsky, though seen as highly talented, was viewed at the top levels as not the kind of team player that the company was looking for. The move is likened by some to the recent ouster at Apple of iOS head Scott Forstall.

Maybe it's because 8 is a stinker and they have to deep discount the so-called upgrade to 15 bucks just to get people to try it?

--
BMO

http://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/

Just thought it was worth pointing out that a company which felt it necessary to send out an investigator to make threats to get its own IP back (rather than waiting until noon the next day) won't ever give others their own IP back. And for a company that helps itself to information that others unintentionally leave out where it can be grabbed - e.g., the Street View and browser privacy bypassing debacles - Google seemed to get overly outraged and aggressive when the shoe was on the other foot and they found their own information carelessly left in the possession of another innocent party. :-)

How many times do we have to beat this into the ground? You CAN get protection on design. This was not just about "rounded rectangles." All bottles share many characteristics, but try selling a soda in a curvy bottle that looks just like Coke's and see where that gets you. All cars share many characteristics, but Chevy can not make a car that looks just like a Mustang and Ford can not make a car that looks just like a Camaro. There are MANY ways to make a tablet that don't consist primarily of a black rectangle with parallel sides and a bezel of a certain width and with chrome trim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

It may or may not be bullshit but that's the law as it stands. There is a continuum between "totally different" and "virtually identical" and that's where the courts come in. Samsung COULD have played it safe and EASILY made products that look different from Apple's but instead they said "let's copy Apple as much as we can and take our chances."

http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/

An article about how wrong he is.. but no link to his actual comments? Really?

http://allthingsd.com/20121010/live-from-new-york-walt-mossberg-kara-swisher-interview-eric-schmidt/

Schmidt: Something unusual has happened. All four companies are networks/platforms generating enormous scale effects. We’ve never had that before: Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google. All different, all competitors, all making enormous investments.

Swisher: You left out Microsoft:

Schmidt: Deliberate. ...

Mossberg: Why did you keep Microsoft out of the Gang of Four?

Schmidt: They’re a well-run company, but they haven’t been able to bring state-of-the-art products into the fields we’re talking about yet.

8:23 pm: Schmidt: The Android-Apple platform fight is the defining contest. Here’s why: Apple has thousands of developers building for it. Google’s platform, Android, is even larger. Four times more Android phones than Apple phones. 500 million phones already in use. Doing 1.3 million activations a day. We’ll be at 1 billion mobile devices in a year.

Schmidt: We’ve not seen network platform fights at this scale. The beneficiary is you all, the customer, globally. “This is wonderful.”

8:25 pm: Compare this to the PC industry. Phone user population is six billion, one billion smartphone users. Much bigger than the PC industry — maybe a billion, 1.5 billion installed.
Every month, quarter, year, the growth rate of mobile adoption exceeds everyone’s expectations. The phones become so useful that “it’s good enough for normal people” in lieu of a PC, for day-to-day events. Years ago, “people like myself, we missed that.”

1) It's Eric Schmidt. of course he's biased.

and

2) he didn't seem to be specifically talking about mobile. Facebook, Google+, etc.

So it's laughable that 100m apple phones, or 500m android phones is a significant platform.. but the OS used on 95% of a billion PCs somehow is not.

John Paczkowski writes that a disagreement over a key feature - voice-guided turn-by-turn driving directions - led Apple to decide it had no choice but to replace Google Maps with its own poorly received home-brewed replacement. Spoken turn-by-turn navigation has been a free service offered through Google's Android mobile OS for a few years now. but it was never part of the deal that brought Google's Maps to iOS. Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step - while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions - put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space. Apple pushed Google hard to provide the data it needed to bring voice-guided navigation to iOS but according to people familiar with Google's thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn't willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform. "There were a number of issues inflaming negotiations, but voice navigation was the biggest," says one source familiar with Apple and Google's negotiations. "Ultimately, it was a deal-breaker." Still Apple is not the only company to be bruised by this rough transition. Google suffered a blow when Apple ended the pair's deal and is scrambling to roll out a standalone mapping application for iOS. Google Maps were used by a large portion of iPhone owners, especially in the US and to abruptly lose that user base, particularly one on a rival mobile platform, is a blow. As one geolocation executive observed, "A hundred million devices upgraded is a big body drop" for Google.

That's the offer they made Samsung.

Most people responding to you have assumed you are referring to Apple. If that is the case, then you are late. Eolas already sued Apple back in October 2009, and they settled August 2011.

"does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem"
I have no idea how people come to the conclusion that Apple's win dooms the rest of the OEMs.

don't fucking copy and you're good to go.

and before you mod me down as a troll..
copying to this degree is what put 1B of Samsung's dollars in Apple's coffers
http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

download the pdf and look at it yourself (it's evidence submitted at trial).
i had no idea it was this bad.

getting your panties in a bunch over a handful of standard essential patents is one thing and needs to stop.
that PDF is embarrassing.. it's like Samsung is a shady Chinese replica maker with big bucks, and a brand name.

then they turn around and do shit like this?
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/08/21/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review-an-embarrassing-lazy-arrogant-money-grab/

Yes, it is such a tragedy, because the dividing line is completely unclear now. Many people (presumably Samsung's lawyers included) did not believe that there was a violation

That seems unlikely. After all, one of the things that came out in the trial was that Google (and other third parties) warned Samsung that their products looked too similar to Apple's. And the dividing line was certainly clear enough that Microsoft has had no difficulty coming up with phones that clearly do not infringe on Apple's design patents. So how is it such a terrible tragedy if Samsung has to come up with original designs, the way Microsoft and other manufacturers have done?

AllThingsD posted an Ina Fried article a couple weeks ago about Apple's 2010 presentation to Samsung on patents. You know, the "by the way, you're infringing a crapload of our stuff, and we'd really like you to license it or pay royalties" dog-and-pony show.

Given that Apple has made it clear they offered Samsung a license/royalty deal, and Samsung has made it clear they would have preferred a license/royalty deal, it appears the whole mess only went to trial because they simply couldn't agree on pricing.

Interestingly, AllThingsD included (via Scribd) the entire 90-slide "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" presentation Apple made to Samsung - I guess it must have been submitted as evidence or something. Basically the whole presentation is "We have patent X, which is infringed by Android in Y way, as used in Samsung product Z."

The list of patents in that presentation is a lot longer than the list of patents the jury in this case had to decide infringement claims on. Some of them are also being cited in a case against HTC, but it looks like several may not be topics of any lawsuits so far.

And while a decent number of the patents are ones issued since the creation of iOS and the iPhone, there are quite a lot that date back to the 1990s.

I'm not sure how many of them have already been rendered moot by various aspects of Android being re-implemented, but the presentation is an interesting read.

The PC is dying. The most recent quarterly results confirm it, as Apple alone announced 12 M iPad tablet sales, overwhelming Dell's mere 9 M PC sales. The consumer market is especially bad as laptop prices continue to fall to record lows without stimulating sales. Intel's Ultrabook initiative has already been declared a failure. If not for third-world markets, the PC would be in complete freefall.

Meanwhile, the retail segment continues to collapse. Best Buy reports record losses while laying off hundreds of Geek Squad technicians, the lifeline of consumer PC support. Soon it may be impossible to purchase a PC from a major name brand retailer. Consumers wanting a PC will need to enter shady inner-city shops selling off-brand merchandise.

Worse, the outlook for the PC looks especially foreboding with Microsoft's poorly-received Windows 8 OS on the horizon. Leading PC game developer Gabe Newell is convinced that Windows 8 will devastate what remains of the PC industry and force major OEMs to close shop. Massive discontent about Windows 8 fomenting on the Internet will only further push consumers into the tablet market.

The situation in Enterprise is even more grim. Most large businesses have standardized on Windows XP, Internet Explorer, and applications built on obsolete frameworks such as VisualBASIC. As far as business is concerned, the PC is as mortified as a Selectric Typewriter. No major PC upgrades will likely occur ever again. Meanwhile, nearly all major corporations are experimenting with tablets and developing modern mobile applications.

Hewlett-Packard has already publicly expressed serious doubts about the future of the PC market. IBM wisely abandoned it years ago. Margins are already below zero as PCs are loss-leaders for IT outsourcing and other services. Second-tier CPU builder AMD is reportedly close to bankruptcy. In a few years, Chinese conglomerates will control all manufacture and distribution.

While the Amazing Kreskin may predict the future, most computer nerds are too myopic to grok the obvious conclusion. They blindly cling to beige turbo-buttoned clones while debating the latest window manager advancements. Soon, they too will be seen as relics, just like the seldom-used PCs pushed into dusty cubical corners, much like the dumbterms which preceded them. Ding dong, indeed the PC is already dead. The new era has begun.

I do wonder how many of the changes in form had to do with advancing technology.

If you look at (say) the early days of PCs, when technology suddenly made them possible, then there were a huge number of "sloped boxes with keyboards and monitor connections" (Apple 2, TRS-80, Sorcerer, OSI Challenger, Vic 20...) but they were (a) distinctively identifiable at a glance and (b) were hugely different to use. Ditto, say, digital cameras: several years of weird and wonderful diversity before it settled down into compacts, travel zooms and DSLRs. With smartphones - Apple's "before iPhone/after iPhone" poster is a slight exaggeration but it is a good first approximation to what happened.

Thin rectangular phone with rounded corners and a capacitive touchscreen perfectly describes the Prada.

Which does look like the iPhone 4 spoilt with some fugly chrome buttons, which may be why the the jury in Apple vs Samsung threw out the "thin rectangle with rounded corners" claims for the iPad and iPhone 4. The original iPhone actually had a more distinctive shape than the 4, and used a convex back to make the phone look thinner than it actually was.

It also looks a lot like the infamous Apple what would Sony do drawing, which pre-dates the release of the Prada.

I think this about sums it up:

Kindle expected to sell well among parents who always buy the wrong thing

These are starting to get a bit far fetched, it doesn't exactly look dissimilar to the telstra shops for example...or many other retailers for that matter.

Bad news - iPad mini is announced in 3 weeks and will eat nex7's lunch. Motogoog is spooked.

Yeah, I hear they're going to ship it with free sandpaper too...
http://allthingsd.com/20120705/the-7-inch-ipads-biggest-critic-steve-jobs/

Samsung's smartphones alone sold 2x Apples'.

No, that is absolutely wrong. Maybe that's what the marketing department is spewing out, but according to the court docs released a few days ago here:

Samsung sold 4.5M Android-based phones in Q1/Q2 this year, while Apple sold 19M iPhones.
Totals in 2011? Samsung 12M, Apple 32M.

So, sorry but Apple is KILLING Samsung on sales.

Samsung alone has been outselling the iPhone for a while, which is why Apple is desperately trying to crush them in particular.

Samsung's marketing department has been claiming that Samsung has been outselling the iPhone.

The reality, revealed in last week's court filings, is quite different.

http://allthingsd.com/20120809/apple-vs-samsung-trial-forces-companies-to-open-up-the-books/

You haven't been following the recent releases from the lawsuits, have you?

June 2010 to June 2012, they only sold 21 million infringing (ie, Android) smartphones phones in USA (does not cover windows phones, etc).

Same time period, Apple sold 60 million iphones (though I think that's world wide). So all those "Samsung outside Apple X to 1" headlines are bullshit.

http://allthingsd.com/20120809/apple-vs-samsung-trial-forces-companies-to-open-up-the-books/

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

I'm going to go ahead and assume English isn't your first language. The statement clearly says Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence., which is absolutely true, without any additional context it says nothing about their intention wrt the jury on releasing the exhibits, much more likely it was to give some clarity to the public. Not to mention the jury is already banned from reading media reports about the case or researching it.

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

-=Geoskd

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

You're both confused because there are two separate issues here (notice the word "also" in the quote you pasted)

Issue 1) Samsung wants to show it had designs of iPhone-like phones predating the iPhone. In particular the designs predating the F700, which is a Samsung Phone
Issue 2) Samsung wants to show that Apple looked toward others, i.e. Sony for inspiration on the iPhone. This would be what you quoted.

Samsung wasn't allowed to do this in trial, so they sent out a bunch of slides (linked here) to the press which do the same, and the Judge is mad at that.

You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this, and this, which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.

You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this, and this, which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.

You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this, and this, which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.

They aren't moving enough Windows Phones to get out of the "Others" ghetto in market share analysis:

http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/07/Strat_ana.jpg

This is the latest report and yet again, the "Others" category contracted. It is now at 4.0% total containing who knows what because new WindowsPhone7, but likely old Windows Phone6.x that is shrinking faster than WindowPhone7 is growing.

iOS/Android = ~90%
Blackberry = ~6%
Others = 4%

IMO it is questionable if you should bother supporting Blackberry, let alone delving for real scraps in the "Others" category.

> Is there any evidence that anyone has *ever* bought a Galaxy Tab when they meant to buy an iPad? Any?

Just this article. Excerpt:

"Samsung was forced to release a bunch of documents it had been keeping under seal that show the likeness between its products and Apple's. Examples outlined in the documents include comments from Samsung workers discussing similarities with Apple's products, and reports Samsung got from retailer Best Buy that Samsung tablets were being returned because customers thought they were getting iPads."

~Philly

But they did.

From TFA: http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/07/samsung_designs.jpg

You'll see there that, prior to the announcement of the iphone, Samsung had produce many bar-touchscreen designs. The iphone is similar to some of them, (since they were first), while some are more obviously just ancestors of the Galaxy S. Models like the Slide and F700 (of which I had one, prior to the announcement of the iphone) very obviously evolved into the Galaxy S.


A great comparison is the car market. In Australia, there are arguments amongst car enthusiasts (see: Bogans) about which is better between the (Ford) Falcon and the (Holden) Commodore. Both 'camps' are just as one-eyed and ranting mad as the Apple vs Samsung camps. (And in both situations, I look at them and think "WTF? It's just a car/phone" and get a completely different brand so that I don't have to be tarred with the same brush. (Hell, I'm using a frickin' SONY atm to avoid those two!

In the late 70s and early 80s, both the Falcon/Fairmont and the Commodore/Calais had the typical 'boxy' look of a 70s car.

Suddenly 1988 came around and both companies took the evolutionary process of gasp Rounding the corners! at the same time, with the 1988 Falcon and Commodore getting the same rounded, streamlined look.

I'm sorry, but while I still have a deep-seated sympathy for Apple from the days when they were the underdog vs MS, in this case they are abusing process and being vexatious over a very logical and common design evolution.

Not just that, but AllThingsD posted a new story today that expands on yesterday's report (i.e. the Slashdot article) and goes into even more detail on a few aspects. Here's one snippet:

Samsung was forced to release a bunch of documents it had been keeping under seal that show the likeness between its products and Apple’s. Examples outlined in the documents include comments from Samsung workers discussing similarities with Apple’s products, and reports Samsung got from retailer Best Buy that Samsung tablets were being returned because customers thought they were getting iPads. Samsung still has a pending motion to prevent all of this information from being included at trial.

Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs.

Found the details. Apple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief). The emails show an iPhone designer being instructed to create a "Sony-like" design, the initial CAD drawings he created even had the Sony logo on. The emails then show the existing iPhone design being abandoned for the new "Sony" design, and the Apple designer has given sworn testimony that his "Sony-style" design changed the course of the project and led to the final iPhone design.

As the summary and article state plainly, Samsung made what amounts to a copy of the iPad.

The article and summary also point out that Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs. If that is true, it will be interesting to see how Sony respond.

Also interesting to note that Samsung have produced their own before and after graphic for the court, which disproves the Apple fan claims that "all Samsung phones look like the iPhone".

I told ya so. Microsoft: Okay, Maybe We Are Alienating PC Makers With Surface http://allthingsd.com/20120727/microsoft-okay-maybe-we-are-alienating-pc-makers-with-surface/

What? EA didn't purchase Zynga. Zynga did an IPO last year.

Sorry, a wee bit of confusion on my part. EA have been buying up social/casual gaming companies to compete with Zynga. This has caused a huge drop in profit. http://allthingsd.com/20111201/electronic-arts-acquires-another-social-game-company-as-zyngas-ipo-nears/

As for app downloads - the key number is revenue. On iOS at least games generate by far the most revenue of all apps.

Keep telling yourself that. Would you rather have $1 10,000 times or $0.10 1,000,000 times. that is the choice developers are faced when deciding to charge, except they cant guarantee the numbers regardless. The only one making money out of the App store is Apple and even they admit they aren't making much.

But the point was, there's no money in it for most developers. Most make a loss and eventually the app bubble with burst with all the wonderful fallout that comes with financial bubble bursting.

No, it's not comparable to DirecTV. Most of your DirecTV bill goes to the content providers, not DirecTV.

Does it really? http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/ I totaled every channel in the left column at about $19, the other 3 can't be more than $10 altogether. Once you get HD service for a couple of TV's and your promo pricing expires your looking at around $90 with D*. Of course that price list is an average of what cable/DBS services pay. But if anything Directv pays less. If google is just looking to break even on TV cost as a bonus to their fiber service they could very easily offer a large number of channels for $50/month.

>> This table is sold probably at the price it costs to make or even less,

> The teardown suggests Google is making about $15 over hardware cost

Andy Rubin, Senior Vice President of Mobile at Google, told AllThingsD "When it gets sold through the Play store, there's no margin." The article says "Google is selling the device through its Google Play store, essentially at cost, and also absorbing the marketing costs associated with the device."