Slashdot Mirror

Nearly everything about how Apple has handled this has been wrong. From their disingenuous attempt to rebrand the problem "Antennagate" to stop the media from calling it the "Death Grip", to their feigned surprise that the iPhone signal bar calculation was heavily weighted to make the iPhone look like a strong performer.

Now they're showing off how much testing the phone went through, which seems indicate they knew it was glitchy from the start. Or did they? I mean after all, in one of the first reviews of the iPhone 4 before it was even released, Walt Mossberg said:

However, on at least six occasions during my tests, the new iPhone was either reporting “no service” or searching for a network while the old one, held in my other hand, was showing at least a couple of bars. Neither Apple nor AT&T could explain this.

So the very first review picked up on it, but they didn't have an explanation? They said they waited to have a press conference because they wanted to do testing to determine the problem, but doesn't that undermine the point that you've done adequate testing? Why after their press conference, is it still so unclear if they knew whether skin connecting the antennas was a problem or not?

The really bizarre thing is I've had an iPhone 4 since day 1, I've seen the glitch and until I got a case it had been affecting my data connections, but I still really like this phone! Is Apple turning us all into battered wives?

ironically, CR still rates it HIGHER than any other smart phone for the US market!"

TFA linked to in the summary (I know, nobody reads it) explains it better than that snarky blog post:

• "The iPhone scored high, in part because it sports the sharpest display and best video camera we've seen on any phone, and even outshines its high-scoring predecessors with improved battery life and such new features as a front-facing camera for video chats and a built-in gyroscope that turns the phone into a super-responsive game controller. But Apple needs to come up with a permanent--and free--fix for the antenna problem before we can recommend the iPhone 4." (emphasis added)

ironically, CR still rates it HIGHER than any other smart phone for the US market! actual report is behind a CR paywall, link goes to blog post that shows a screen shot of the report...

Er, except that picture shows that it's filtered on "AT&T smart phones" and not smart phones in general. That certainly cuts down the competition. I bet the iPhone 4 is also the best iPhone 4!

ironically, CR still rates it HIGHER than any other smart phone for the US market!
actual report is behind a CR paywall, link goes to blog post that shows a screen shot of the report...

I'm not suggesting that Apple can force existing Mac owners to adopt iOS, but they amount of money they can make from a locked down user is so much more then for a regular free user that I would expect that eventually, all Apple products will come with iOS.

Actually, Apple doesn't make that much from the App store.

Apple telling these developers you can only use our ad service is just blatant abuse at this point.

It is somewhat more subtle. One interpretation is that Apple is protecting user privacy. Reading the text of the TOS : http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100412/is-apple-closing-off-the-iphone-to-rival-ad-networks/ it seems pretty reasonable from an app user POV.
I also think this is an informative take: http://davidbarnard.com/post/684540619/anti-competitive-and-potentially-creepy

Article with actual agreement text.

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100608/apple-makes-good-on-steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/

If you watch this video (which may work without Flash on Safari/Chrome):

http://video.allthingsd.com/video/d8-steve-jobs-on-television/FF922002-FA63-4B68-A326-EA12EC800612

Steve Jobs told the exact problem with "Apple TV" or anything regarding "replacing TV" or "inventing things to plug into TV". He also said he will not let (!) a nation of "bloggers". Perhaps he meant such blogs/news sites (!) who doesn't understand the basic concept of millions of devices pulling some random data at same time and making money over it. Ask Google about the money Youtube makes...

Google has shown off something far more impressive: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100519/video-sports-illustrated-shows-off-a-google-ready-magazine/

That's probably why Apple just put together a new data center in North Carolina:

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100222/that%E2%80%99s-apple%E2%80%99s-new-data-center-where%E2%80%99s-the-giant-glass-cube/

MPEG LA, the group that formed a patent pool for H.264, does not protect their licensees against all patent infringement - but just against patent infringement suits by their licensors, and only then in the limited case of the specific case of patents included in the pool, and only then for limited times.

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?

A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

So you are in no way more protected by using the restricted H.264 license than you are by using the open VP8 license in the US. In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents, so the only issue is which one of these is technically best.

And now MPEG LA is trying to form a patent pool for VP8. Will wonders never cease? Patents are broken. Let us hope that Monday SCOTUS rules that software patents are void in RE Bilski.

And of course, I forgot to paste the linkt to the interview.

Flash runs fine on my Mac. I've not encountered one problem so I dunno what Mac you use but it sucks. IMO !

Today I was reminded of this interview with Adobe's Chief Technical Officer Kevin Lynch, where he acknowledges the inferior performance of Flash on the Mac:

Around 1:15:

So, for example, performance on the Macintosh is an area that we're working on, we have been working on for a while (...) now we're working really hard on making sure that video renderers are using similar CPU usage in Mac and Windows. Right now the Mac uses more CPU than Windows (...)

I can't help but wonder how you get the same performance under Mac and Windows, when even Adobe's CTO acknowledges that the performance on the Mac is inferior.

Calling someone a liar, because you redefined their words to suit your needs, is kind of a douchebag move.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100405/apple-300000-ipads-sold-on-first-day/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipad+first+day+sales

The industry uses the term "sold" pretty consistently to cover both direct distribution to end-users and distribution to retail channels. Again, you don't get to decide what the words mean. In the context it was used, the figure is absolutely correct.

Also, 450k in one WEEK* is also a LOT different than 400k in one MONTH. If you're going to go around being an asshole, at least be accurate.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-08/apple-unveils-iphone-program-says-450-000-ipads-sold-update1-.html

* - By week, of course I mean 5 days. Note the date on the article. Redefining words is FUN :)

Andy Ihnatko's Sun Times review + Unboxing

Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing review

Goatberg's WSJ review

Baig's USA Today review

and Pogue's awkward review for NYT

The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.

Interesting point: So what are those Apple patents

Among the patents Apple accuses Nokia of infringing:

• No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
• No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
• No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
• No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
• No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
• No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
• No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
• No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
• No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
• No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
• No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
• No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
• No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load

So the first listed is already quite obviously a hardware patent (filed in 1993, so don't post prior-art younger than that), and that isn't the only one.

They have a copy of the filing with patent numbers and short descriptions

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-against-htc-both-documents/

Not a huge fan of patents especially on software.

  Apple did spend years and years getting the keyboardless touchscreen phone developed. It was not a sure hit, especially without the keyboard. Now the iphone form factor is ubiquitous and as Apple also noted when it was released that they had a ton of patents on the device, so to maximize profits (as is required by corporations), they sue....

Ultimately these big companies usually end up with some cross licensing patent agreement and life goes own.

Of course it's just PR. But on the off chance the line was coined by the founders and the even offer chance they might insist on adhering to it, as of now they still could.

Mr Page and Mr Brin hold a combined voting power of 59%, of which they expect to sell 11% over the next five years. That'll bring 'em down to 48% and leave room for a more or less unanimous vote by the rest of the stakeholders to, well, do evil.

Ah well, as long as they stick to doing less evil than the rest, they're, well, finer the rest in my book. :)

“You know, I’m a big believer in touch and digital reading, but I still think that some mixture of voice, the pen and a real keyboard–in other words a netbook–will be the mainstream on that,” Gates said. “So, it’s not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, ‘Oh my God, Microsoft didn’t aim high enough.’ It’s a nice reader, but there’s nothing on the iPad I look at and say, ‘Oh, I wish Microsoft had done it.’”

source.

I was using the term "open" in contrast with "fucking locked down" as per the gp, not open in a FSF sense.

I'm not sure you've even established your point to that standard. Is a PS3 less "fucking locked down" than an AppleTV, or just "fucking locked down" in a different sort of way? At least when you put an iTunes movie on an AppleTV, you can at least play it in HD, without having to worry about network buffering -- there's your tradeoff.

Either way, the Mac mini and console-modding solutions are pretty thin gruel to argue on success or failure of an entire strategy, considering how little penetration they've achieved compared to Plain Old Satellite/Cable/DVR. I don't think any of these has shown a true "way out" of the cable block-channel-subscription model. Everything out there in the Internet Television world is still pretty half-assed compared to cable, and when we try to assign the reason for something like AppleTV failing, you have to show why people didn't buy it instead of X, and if X in 90% of cases is cable TV, then arguing the comparative merits of PS3 modding is sorta unresponsive.

The AppleTV was a test device to see if people were willing to do what people on slashdot have been begging to do, namely, "let me pay for only the shows I want!" It's a cable-killer: in it's primary use case, it makes cable redundant. Lo and behold, this prospect didn't actually appeal to alot of people. Which is interesting, and says a lot about how much "freedom" people are actually willing to pay for.

Apple's attempts to restructure their sales in a more all-you-can-eat way, most recently reported before Xmas, have failed, primarily because many of the largest content creators, Time-Warner, Disney and Sony, have huge interests in cable distribution. This is remarkably similar to how the plain film industry was organized up to the early 1950s, and studios back then would essentially pull the same crap that cable providers pull on their customers -- they'd force theater owners to book two bad films in order to be able to book one good one, they'd use formula deals to create artificial scarcity, etc. This was finally resolved by the SCOTUS forcing the studios to divest their theaters on anti-trust grounds... I wonder what the chances of that happening again are :)

I doubt they care about the technology, they care about who is controlling the technology. IE Amazon is taking control of the technology and is to offer a 70 percent royalty rate for books while the current publishers give out less than a $1 a book (more like 3-6%) if they are allowed to cut out the publishers. I am sure the publishers would be willing to pass on the savings, they don't want to pass on the control. B&N is doing similar at 35% payout rate and with google's book settlement google will scan you book, format it as a e-book, and sell it while giving authors 63%.

I do not know exactly how oink works (worked?), but from the quote

All I do is really like Google, to really provide a connection between people. None of the music is on my website.

Wouldn't that make exactly the same defence valid for Pirate Bay and other torrent sites?

If Oink was still up and running, I'm guessing they may have had a similar outcome to mininova, where they wouldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement on the basis that they didn't upload any songs themselves, but would have to remove the copyrighted material. Even if that was the trial, wasn't he charged with fraud, and not file distribution / copyright infringement? That becomes a question of whether the people donating were scammed (perhaps into thinking their donations go towards artists).

It's not really fair to compare this with TPB either, which really was created for pirating. Before you mark this as troll, look at their posted legal threats and cheeky responses, the DJ Joel torrent, and the name "the pirate bay" (cmon, a body of water in Sweden? who are you kidding).

Also, from TFA, he is the first person to be charged in the UK, so the copyright / fraud laws may differ from those in Sweden or the Netherlands

Digital Daily has posted a list of the patents at issue here and the full text of Apple's counterclaims -- which are pretty brutal. "Excerpt: In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more.The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface."

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091113/apple-smartphone/

Apple: From Zero to 17.1 Percent Smartphone Share in 2.5 Years

That's "Smartphone," so it's not "cell phones."

Or 9.39 billion reasons why it is:

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091013/intel-profit-sales-beat-street/

One quarter doesn't tell you anything; Nokia was hit hard by the depression, and while it's profits are in the red, historically it has made more money, ships more units, and operates on a larger scale than Apple.

So was Apple operating in a parallel universe where there was no recession when it reported record revenues and profits on Tuesday?

Nokia may sell a lot more phones but the average price of a Nokia phone is $68. The average price of an iPhone is $669 (wholesale price).

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090804/iphone-claims-32-percent-of-handset-industry-operating-profits/

Apple's share of smart phone profits is 32%

Nokia's has made less than Apple every quarter for the last four quarters and as of close of business today is worth about a quarter of what Apple is worth (total market cap).

This is no different from Dell selling a lot more computers than Apple but being a lot less profitable doing it.

Apple advocates may not want to play the popularity card. By that standard, MacOS must suck, cuz Windows derivatives are 18 times more popular.

Apple products target the high end market which is smaller in itself. Still, when the iPhone collects a third of handset industry profits and tops the consumer satisfaction surveys, it means it is one of the greatest products of all time.

Upgrade options, duh!

They want to help consumers with more choice. Just imagine what the NEXT version of this will look like:
http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/files/2009/08/windows-upgrade-chart.png

LOL...I read this article first on the Huffington Post. When I clicked on the story, it brought up this web site: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090913/home-delivery-the-new-york-times-serves-up-some-malware/ Lo and behold 3/4 of the way down on the right side under sponsored Links was this ad: Fix Hard Driveâ Fix Hard Drive in 3 Mins. Download Repair Tool (Recommended) ScanErrors.com Well, I don't know if this is a good or bad site, but from the looks of the comments, one wonders. Would anyone in their right minds download a program that supposedly scans their hard disk without knowing who their getting the app from? Oh...Wait a minute...Sorry...Dumb Question.

If AT&T actually makes the upgrades, and Apple ends their exclusivity agreement with them (as they are rumored to be considering), maybe AT&T will finally rise to the absymal level to merely mediocre.

Apple has confirmed that you can install the $30 upgrade version on top of Tiger.

Relevant quote from the original article:

But here's a tip: Apple concedes that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade will work properly on these Tiger-equipped Macs, so you can save the extra $140.

Apple has said it would install; they have not sanctioned doing so. If you don't care for this distinction, I suggest you head to your friendly neighborhood torrent tracker.

Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited.

And because the world doesn't always make sense, Palm filed a complaint with the USB Implementors Forum, stating Apple is abusing the vendor ID (according to http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090723/you-can-almost-hear-the-shrieks-of-outrage-in-cupertino-cant-you/ ).

Heck with digital distribution why even have ads on free stuff because the price of the device itself more than makes up for the minuscule price of transfer.

The Kindle has sold about 800,000 units. Analyst: Kindle to reach 10 percent of Amazon's customer base [June 30]

The vast majority of Kindle downloads are indeed priced at $9.99 or less (and a third of them are freebies)
Amazon is subsidizing the cost of those $9.99 books, which means they're just barely profitable.
Bernstein analysts Claudio estimate that Jeff Bezos and company record an operating profit of 61 cents on each $9.99 e-book they sell. But a $24.95 hardcover generates $4.25 in operating profit. That's a 7 to 1 ratio, and that can't continue, indefinitely. Like Your Kindle Books Cheap? Don't Get Too Used to It [June 19]

"Free Beer" is a time-honored way to build a market. But you can't freely distribute a third of your product - 100,000 titles - over the cell phone network and expect hardware sales to cover the bill.

The Wall Street Journal articles have problems with lack of attribution and stated lack of verification of this info. If the story true (and I think it probably is), the authors of the articles need to elaborate.

Immediately after the article was posted on their site, I wrote the writers and editors the following email:

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:23
Subject: Questionable standards for reporting by Wall Street Journal journalists Kane, Lublin, and Meckler
To: Yukari Iwatani Kane , "Joann S. Lublin" , Laura Meckler
Cc: "Robert J. Thomson" , New York Times News Department

Dear Journalists of The Wall Street Journal,

The two articles referred to below, published June 20, 2009 on the website of The Wall Street Journal, state controversially without attribution that Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs received a liver transplant in Tennessee approximately two months ago:

Reported June 20, 2009 by Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin, "Jobs Had Liver Transplant",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546193182433491.html

Reported June 20, 2009 by Laura Meckler, "Jobs's Transplant Highlights Differing Wait Times",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546226305633529.html


As journalists you are expected to seek reliable sources and to accompany reports of controversial facts with attribution. However, as Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin state in the first article, "The specifics of Mr. Jobs's surgery couldn't be established." They further state explicit lack of verification of Job's putative surgery by spokespeople for each of the three hospitals in Tennessee designated as liver-transplant centers.

As of ten minutes ago I could find only the following two other online articles reporting on this topic. As their sources these articles cite only The Wall Street Journal, and at that as a secondary source:

Reported June 19, 2009 by MG Siegler, "Not Only Was Steve Jobs Sick. He Had A Liver Transplant",
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/19/not-only-was-steve-jobs-sick-he-had-a-liver-transplant/

Reported June 19, 2009 by Peter Kavka, "Report: Steve Jobs Is Recovering From Liver Transplant, Still Coming Back to Apple",
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090619/report-steve-jobs-is-recovering-from-liver-transplant-still-coming-back-to-apple/


Do you have primary sources of this information? Have you checked and cross checked this information? If you have evidence, have you validated its authenticity? Do you have corroboration?

If so, please elaborate in your articles.

Also, as for Timothy's "not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one" heading: no. This summary in the text is not as good as a transcript, and the video is not as good as a transcript, because reading a transcript is faster, and is something I can do at work. (Yes, I know that it's Sunday).

Even Microsoft employees would rather have an iPhone than Windows Mobile.

You had me right up until you said "more competition, cheaper prices." Sorry dude. You've got four major established players, and you'd naively think this would mean vigorous competition, but in fact there's little evidence for this idea, and more troubling, there's evidence for collusion. (Shock! Gasp! A free Market perfect information perfect competition, doesn't and can never exist in actuality? Sob! Genuflecting at the Alter of Free Markets has done nothing! Cartels exist? Cry! Suicide!)

Here is a link to the entire memo Steve sent to employees regarding the layoffs.

No, it's not my blog nor am I affiliated in any way with the site.

The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.

It was a Republican dominated FCC board that allowed mass media to increase it's ownership in local media from 35% to 45%.

My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy

And it's a good question. Wiki has a page on Thomas J. Perrelli but there's not much there. Here's more, what I found interesting was that the entertainment industry contributed $7,669,442 to the Obama campaign. The American Prospect has more as well.

Falcon

And no one ever was wrong about the next product that would knock Apple out of the lead in a niche:

http://gizmodo.com/384440/rim-engineers-call-touchscreen-blackberry-apple-killer
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/08/songbird-the-open-so.html
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20081215/amazons-mp3-store-one-year-in-no-itunes-killer-probably-wont-be/
http://www.allfacebook.com/2007/10/facebook-to-launch-itunes-competitor/
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/07/dells_ipod_killer_revealed_pro.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5183692.html

Early this morning we were alerted by our customers that there was a widespread issue affecting our 2006 model Zune 30GB devices (a large number of which are still actively being used). The technical team jumped on the problem immediately and isolated the issue: a bug in the internal clock driver related to the way the device handles a leap year. That being the case, the issue should be resolved over the next 24 hours as the time change moves to January 1, 2009. We expect the internal clock on the Zune 30GB devices will automatically reset tomorrow (noon, GMT). By tomorrow you should allow the battery to fully run out of power before the unit can restart successfully then simply ensure that your device is recharged, then turn it back on. If you are a Zune Pass subscriber, you may need to sync your device with your PC to refresh the rights to the subscription content you have downloaded to your device.

I thought Walt Mossberg was pretty positive about it, and the gyst was that this really is a handheld computer. I have neither a G1 nor an iPhone, but I'm watching them closely. I'm a math teacher, and I would love to have a handheld Wifi-equipped computer to just slide under an overhead projector and demo stuff to my students. (Yeah, as if they don't all already have iPhones! Actually, only a few do.) The G1 lacks enough storage for me, but the data plan is more attractive. The iPhone has the storage but the data plan is a potential nightmare. Maybe an iPod Touch... Anyway, I'd expect the G1 and iPhone to converge in terms of features and data plans over the next few releases.

At any rate, I love seeing real competition in this space, AND neither is Microsoft. I expect the success of the iPhone and G1 to show my students and colleagues that there are alternatives to Windows.

"A second big feature, or limitation, of the G1 depending on your point of view is that it is tightly tied to Googles web-based email, contacts and calendar programs. In fact, you must have a Google (GOOG) account to use the phone, and can only synchronize the phones calendar and address book with Google online services. Unlike the iPhone, it doesnt work with Microsoft Exchange, and it cant physically be synced with a PC-based calendar or contacts program, like Microsoft Outlook."

I am pretty sure Gizmodo picked up on it as well when they did their live blog of the announcement.

There's another instant review from Moss, worth a shufti:,br>
http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20080923/googles-g1-first-impressions/
br.

Check it: the comedian "not only used a Mac in the series that made him famous, but closed out Apple's 1997 "Crazy Ones" ad -- which, ironically, aired only once, during the series finale of "Seinfeld.""

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070810/iphone-deadspot/

Search return on a Cuil query for "cuil."

"We didn't find any results for Cuil. Try to think of different words to describe your search."

I think that pretty much says it all.

Read Ballmer's message to the troops -- his selected targets are Apple and Google, not FOSS. That is a calculated strategy, not an awakening. The man is very deluded, but he ain't stupid -- he knows that he can't take on the world, but he can aim at a couple of big bears that have started to take over his forest.

whoops... somehow the link got borked:

here is it

Kara: Steve, how do you look at Microsoft from an Apple perspective?

[Jobs recycles his "Apple is about beautiful software in a beautiful box" comments from the earlier session today.] âoeThe big secret about Apple, of courseâ"not-so-big secret maybeâ"is that Apple views itself as a software company and there arenâ(TM)t very many software companies left, and Microsoft is a software company. And so, you know, we lo

Apple is and always has been a hardware company.

Uh yeah?

You should tell that to their Cofounder, Chairman, and CEO. On the last interview I saw that guy said that "Apple views itself as a software company."

You surely have some insider information there...
Have you bought that bridge already?