Slashdot Mirror

I already said in the original message that other companies in the space are losing money. That's why the profits add up to more than 100%.

Do you know why Apple has that stupid "whole screen slides to the side" unlock now? Because someone put a patent on "slide to unlock"

That wouldn't by any chance be, well, Apple.. would it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/25/apple_unlock_patent/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature

Though their effort to put it to legal use in Europe fizzled.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-invalidated-in-german-litigation

Sure, maybe somebody else popped up with some prior art (like, say, http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm ) - but forcing Apple to change theirs just as dozens of others were forced to abandon or pre-emptively stay away from the slide-to-unlock slider button type deal entirely for years seems like just deserts.

Of course it's a stupid patent no matter who 'owns' it, or any variant of it.

Macs were the anomaly in all this - their "PC" sales went up 26% over the same time period.

Ultimate source is Gartner, but found the info here: linky

Just to be contrary, IDC released their own report, which has 4th quarter US shipments down only 1.5% overall, and Apple's down 5.7%. They have Lenovo growing 10% for the same period (vs Gartner's +3.5%), and have them as the only one with positive growth worldwide year on year.

IDC PC shipments press release

Macs were the anomaly in all this - their "PC" sales went up 26% over the same time period.

Ultimate source is Gartner, but found the info here: linky

Also, if kept reasonably clean, a Mac will last way longer than the typical OEM box/laptop.

Otherwise, in the PC realm? Yeah... over the past few years, I've just bought laptops as needed, and aside from my last purchase (because the old laptop was failing), that's been farther and fewer between.

In other news, there is also the Tablet Effect; my wife went from a laptop to an iPad 4 last year, and it seems to suit her perfectly.

Dell, Acer, and others announced 28" 4K monitors over the last week at CES, all right around $799. A little bit pricier than the Seiki, but they come with DisplayPort and are able to do 4K@60Hz, IIRC. I am currently using 2-27" 2560x1440 with a 3rd 1080p that I watch TV and movies while I am working. I probably won't upgrade until HDMI 2.0 becomes commonplace.

PCs that ship with SteamOS are probably pressure enough

I disagree. The PC and PC gaming market doesn't just consist of people who primarily play games. The industry has long shifted to want to include everybody else, and the "gamer" tag is becoming less and less meaningful these days, as more and more people play games to some degree or another

Here's where the LCD kicks in again. Lots of people are too lazy to setup an HTPC. Lots of people simply accept whatever DRM big publishers push on them. Lots of people actually like Apple's walled garden, or accept that Windows (8) PC as that's the only thing the big name store carries.

Most importantly, lots of people want their PCs to general use, not slanted towards gaming (oh I'm sure SteamOS is fully capable for general use, but that's not the angle it's being sold as). When these non-gamer non-computer-literate people go to a store and ask for a general use PC, the likely response (LCD, path of least resistance) would be Windows (and when they say "I want to play games in the living room, the LCD response is PS4/XBONE or even the Wii U)

I mean, even when Win 8/Vista sucked, many people are still on some variant of Windows

So when publishers are looking to publish for the PC, they'll see that there's still a whole lot of people on Windows, where their existing DRM works, and think it's ok to make what money they can off of Windows people, and think of a port later (that is, if they don't go the route of just pushing more DLCs and rush to a sequel - or in business talk: up selling to existing (Windows) customers instead of expanding your customer base (to Linux/SteamOS))

Ditto for console-focused devs/publishers. I liked Gabe's witty "XBox 3 million? We're at 65 million" response, but that's just speaks to Gabe's ability to smooth talk. Objectively speaking that 65 million is Steam users, not people who will install SteamOS or will buy a Steam machine. Even Steam's own stats show most of them are on Windows.

The silver lining however is that if they do make a port, Linux/SteamOS will be a more viable option alongside the other platforms, hopefully at least more viable than... the Mac (oh god the pessimist in me is now even more skeptical)

AppleInsider had a similar article a few days ago.

Their conclusion was $14k, somewhat higher than the Slashdotted article... it would be interesting to see when it comes back up how the component choices differ from the real thing and AppleInsider's.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/24/apples-new-mac-pro-a-better-value-than-the-sum-of-its-parts

But this has happened before.

Initially Apple gear can boast this kind of disparity; then, in fairly short order, PC hardware which exceeds Apple specs arrives and sells at a cheaper price point due to economies of scale.

Apple then holds onto the original specs for years (the last Mac Pro being a perfect example), until they are forced to retool. I'll even go out on a limb and predict a five year interim before we see another significant revision.

With most workstations, this is easy, you can get a RAID controller

Which you can do on the new MacPro also, generally by either attaching a case with RAID integrated or an external pcie case into which you can put a raid card.

Ahh well you are kinda screwed there too. No cards to add FC to the pro.

No cards, just Thunderbolt 2 where you can add a Thunderbolt 2 to 8G Fibre Channel bridge... You really need to look into what you can do with Thunderbolt 2.

Also you might want to look in to SSD failure rates. They aren't particularly high, but they aren't particularly low either.

They are better than for spinning media and its not like Apple is using discount components here.

People who bring up growth to explain high turnover at Google are like those Apple marketing magicians who sweep their shrinking market share under the carpet and pretend that what matters is that average users spend more time using iPhones than Androids on a daily basis.

What matters to who? What matters to Apple -- a profit seeking entity --is how much money it makes selling iPhones. Which currently is more than the rest of the cell phone industry combined.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/14/apple-samsung-take-massive-109-of-mobile-industry-profits-while-competitors-lose-money

What matters to developers is where they can make the most money -- which is on iOS users.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-play-revenue-pales-in-comparison-to-app-store-2013-10

So exactly who is market share important to?

How did "market share" help Dell, HP, Gateway, and the other titans of the PC industry? How are they doing now?

What? Sure you aren't thinking about something else?

http://cdn1.appleinsider.com/displayport-110708-2.png

Its like 1/4 the width and a bit thicker.

Still a stupid trapezoid but can't win em all!

Android clearly dominates the market outside the US and Australia.

And Japan.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/30/apples-iphone-5s-5c-take-9-of-japans-top-10-smartphone-sales-spots
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/27/apples-iphone-5s-5c-take-76-share-of-japanese-sales-in-october-including-61-on-ntt-docomo

Android clearly dominates the market outside the US and Australia.

And Japan.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/30/apples-iphone-5s-5c-take-9-of-japans-top-10-smartphone-sales-spots
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/27/apples-iphone-5s-5c-take-76-share-of-japanese-sales-in-october-including-61-on-ntt-docomo

I certainly wouldn't want to test the limits of Apple's "Global Security" division... Especially not in one of their company towns.

leaving the store with no parasites attached to me.

Oh? What about.....

Want music? Itunes only.
Upgrade hardrive? No.
Ebook from Amazon? No.
Boobies? Censored.
Buy Apple? Koch profit*.
App developer? Not until it's blessed. Someday.
Child labor? wat**?

Not trying to be an ass, just pointing out that Apple isn't as squeaky clean as they would have you believe. Behind the "curtain" is just another megacorp doing all the typical megacorp crap.

[*] http://macdailynews.com/2013/09/10/koch-brothers-make-offer-of-7-billion-for-apple-supplier-molex/

[**] http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/25/former_executives_accuse_apple_of_ignoring_supplier_labor_abuses

The more Android phones sold now, the more iPhones next year.

Did you even read the summary? Here - let me make it easy for you:

Right now, companies such as Apple, Google and others that issue so-called transparency reports are only allowed to report the volume of requests they get in increments of 1,000.

Did you get that? They didn't provide more detail because they are legally not allowed to beyond a range of 1000. If they could provide more detail, they would.

In fact, they are filing an amicus brief in the efforts of gaining permission to disclose numbers in greater detail.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/05/apple-court-filing-asks-for-transparency-on-government-user-information-requests

Oh, and the list of companies fighting for permission to provide greater detail? Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook and LinkedIn. Notice Google, who you claim publishes the precise number of NSL requests, is on that list.

Let's have a look at Google's transparency report for the US:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/

Oh. Look at that - Google does not provide precise numbers of NSL, as you claim.

It's simple - the US makes it illegal for companies to disclose in any detail greater than units of 1000 how many requests for information they receive. Thus the numbers for the US are, shockingly, in units of 1000. For Apple and Google.

[] apple computers became just a niche market back then, iphones are becoming right now. []

Both are/will be very profitable niche markets though:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/30/apple-earned-more-than-samsung-lg-nokia-huawei-lenovo-motorolas-mobile-shipments-combined

And regarding Androids ubiquity, fragmentation or open-source-ness, this article suggests Google wants more control:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

never underestimate what people can do
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/15/stevie_wonder_thanks_steve_jobs_for_making_ios_devices_fully_accessible

Hate to break it to you, but Apple's been using proprietary connectors from way back. They don't need any coaching from Microsoft.

Most of these phones become obsolete before the need a new cable. Usually those extra accessories will try to take advantage of a unique feature in the phone, so even if the cable fits it doesn't mean the software will work with it.

Bullshit, every single usb charger I've ever owned has worked with every single non-Apple usb device without any issues. The whole point of this standard is so that every phone does work, hassle free, with every charger (in fact the only devices I've seen complain about usb charging are Apple devices, go figure).

Also just because almost all phones come with a charger doesn't mean you won't need to either replace it or buy a 2nd charger, and if you had a previous phone you already have a perfectly good 2nd charger with no need to buy another one because your new phone is incompatible.

You know what? I count being able to borrow anyone at work's usb charging cable and have it work on my usb phone as a good thing.

The EU Law on this is just one of their Lets just find a way to stick it to the Americans law, because they had a fit that Apple took over Nokia lead.

Or maybe the EU cares about doing what's good for consumers and not just what's good for the company that pays them the most money.

If Apple "needs" a proprietary connector then they can put both a micro-usb connector and their expensive proprietary DRMd cable.

Really, last time I looked Apples market share was not only tiny, It too continues to slump. Linux continues to grow everywhere

O Rly? Maybe you should look more frequently? (sorry about linking to an Apple-friendly web site - no one else will post good news about Apple, eh?)

Well, you are confusing two different numbers, namely the percentage of all androids sold worldwide with screens 4.5 inches.

Just like worldwide, Apple has a marketshare of about 20% of smartphones, while within the US, it has about 40%.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/06/apples-iphone-holds-40-share-of-us-smartphone-market

20% of the market and probably 50% of the profits

Samsung Dethrones Apple in Smartphone Profits

Apple has fallen off the profit throne.

Last quarter, Samsung Electronics made more money selling handsets than Apple for the first time.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/26/samsung-dethrones-apple-in-smartphone-profits/

Try again. This has been debunked: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/27/samsung-has-not-dethroned-apple-in-mobile-profits

It's about performance as well as improvements to the overall chip architecture. RAM addressing is not yet an issue for phones or tablets. A couple of links you might want to read about this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/17/inside-apples-64-bit-ios-7-and-the-prospects-for-a-64-bit-android http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/09/review-with-the-iphone-5s-apple-lays-groundwork-for-a-brighter-future/3/

And here's a story saying the pilots, who tested out iPads, fought against IT, who wanted to use the Surface2.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/30/delta-pilots-fought-against-deal-to-replace-ipad-flight-bags-with-microsoft-surface

Basically, a CIO saying 'I don't give a fuck what the users want, we'll tell them what the get'.

Considering the pilots fought to keep the iPads and didn't want Surface, there's more going on behind the scene here.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/30/delta-pilots-fought-against-deal-to-replace-ipad-flight-bags-with-microsoft-surface

I don't believe there is enough profit for MS in software for tablets. The apps are cheap and there is no upward pressure on prices.

Apple makes billions of dollars a year off of app sales, at least $3.4 billion. Selling hardware is a one time thing, customers buy it and keep it for a long time, but apps can be purchased everyday. Just like the console model, customers buy one console, but keep buying games for years, and Microsoft makes the money on the game sales not the console sales.

Also if the hardware is not in the hands of customers then there is no one to make apps for so developers don't make apps. So it works like this:
1) sell hardware cheaply so everyone buys its
2) developers will come when they see there are customers to buy the apps
3) when customers see there are apps, more customers will buy hardware
4) Profit!!!

This business model has worked for Apple, Google, every console (Sony Playstation, Nintendo, etc), even selling razors, where the razor is cheap but the blades are expensive

here

If someone could figure out how to embed cameras in a display panel, that would be the best solution.

Been there, patented that.

Now, it might be nice if Apple allowed people to have the capabilities provided by a jailbreak if they want them. That's not the same as having a jailbreak.

How would you do that without giving people the chance to completely hose their machines like PCs?

Jailbreaking is to get out of the "jail" that iOS puts on applications, so it's basically giving root to iOS users.

If you give people the ability to, they will do it because someone will tell them to do it. There is no way around dancing pigs. Hell when jailbreaking was a popular activity, there was a Rickrolling worm that spread amongst jailbroken iPhones. And another one that stole banking information.

Why? Because people jailbroke as "something neat" and then followed some instructions that said to install OpenSSH in order to do something that required jailbreaking (pirated apps? unique apps? who knows or cares).

Point being, give people the ability to, and they'll do it without regards for security.

It's just like the "Allow non-market apps" checkbox on Android - I'm fairly certain most people have it checked without regard for WHY it's there in the first place. Perhaps they saw some free app on Amazon? Or bought something from Humble Bundle? If you follow how to install those apps, they say to check it.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/01/fllu-offers-cash-to-organically-promote-samsungs-push-for-proprietary-android-apps

Now I know. $500 a month.

Well, you certainly earned it.

Hey, I could use some extra disposable income - feel like putting me in touch with your contact? I'd be willing to be a shill for their toys for $500 a month.

Apple has been losing market share for quite some time now. Q1 sales results. That their sales have now stalled while the market keeps growing is revealing enough.

I have seen no evidence that corporations that use Android care about security.

Why do you think Samsung has to come up with the SAFE campaign, *AND* that says that all iOS devices are "SAFE" rated and *TWO* Samsung devices are "SAFE" and the rest of Android devices are *NOT SAFE".

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/04/samsung-adds-security-layer-to-android-to-gain-enterprise-credibility

... because Ballmer has a stiffie for the iPhone yet doesn't have a damned clue about what makes an iPhone an iPhone! News Flash, Jobs spent more than 3 decades slowly but surely building up Apple to be a high end boutique brand, refused to cut prices even in the 90s when they were on the ropes, because for his entire strategy to work it NEEDED to be expensive!

A perfect analogy would be slapping a new coat of paint on a Pinto and expecting to get Porsche money for it, because MSFT slaughtered the competition precisely because they were NOT expensive, they were the Walmart to Apple's Macy's and there is NO WAY IN HELL they are gonna suddenly flip that and get people to pay more than for an Apple to buy WinPhones and Wintabs, its NEVER gonna happen, it will NEVER work, the MSFT stores are ghost towns, all the little shops like mine have "Yes we have Win 7!" signs in the window, he is burning the damned company to the ground trying to force a strategy that has less of a chance of succeeding than Heaven's Gate II has a chance of being made!

...

And Apple execs too can destroy a company trying to make it the "next Apple".

Former Apple retail chief Ron Johnson, confident in his extreme brilliance that had made Apple incredibly profitable (of course, why share credit with Steve Jobs or anyone else?), extended the benefits of his genius to J.C. Penney's, attempting to run it like an Apple store: dumping value priced merchandise for boutique items; no discounts, not ever; simply throwing away unread a huge consumer study just completed declaring that "just like at Apple, customers don’t always know what they want”.

Chief’s Silicon Valley Stardom Quickly Clashed at J.C. Penney.

Former Apple retail chief presides over JC Penney's lowest sales in 20 Years.

Apple exec fired after 17 months.

That's why they are having problems with FRAND patents - they don't have any to license in return so have to pay cash.

How come you are such an expert on this? Because you sound so damned sure of yourself, yet I know for a fact that Apple does have FRAND patents. For example the ones on x264 that they worked on, or the digital camera ones worked on with Kodak, or even the wireless ones bought from Nortel.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/13/justice_department_approves_apple_patent_purchases_from_nortel_novell

Gotta love those android fanbois that make up bullshit like its real.

And where was the political outrage towards Apple when they opened their own stores, for causing "unfair" competition with the other retailers?

(Obligatory computer analogy in this car thread.)

There were tons of complaints by tons of people; they were unable to buy the laws because the resellers were not franchisees. Here's a short list of pissed off people:

All U.S.: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-dealers-biting-back-Mac-sellers-say-2636871.php
Australia: http://www.macworld.com/article/1027780/australia.html
France: http://www.padgadget.com/2011/12/30/apple-reseller-sues-apple-in-france/
Portugal: http://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/07/portuguese-reseller-interlog-fails-sues-apple-for-hefty-sum
LA and Boston: http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/22/apple_repair_consultants_upset_over_changes_to_apple_retail_referral_policy

The current Apple pissing contest is over the changes to the repair referral channel. They're going to lose to Apple's wishes there, too, since what Apple sells is a holistic customer experience rather than selling only consumer devices.

WIth Android having 92% of the malware I wouldn't use it.......then mixing Windows in with it to add even more problems, have fun with that! http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/26/android-accounts-for-92-of-mobile-malware-malicious-apps-increase-614

Incorrect actually.

Can you support your allegation that Apple requires payment? Perhaps you are unaware that Apple transferred the Thunderbolt trademark to Intel. Thunderbolt is not at all proprietary to either Apple or Intel; at least since a couple of years ago. It is Intel who controls Thunderbolt now, and they furnish royalty-free licenses. The allegation is that Intel's policies are holding back Thunderbolt, but Intel denies this fairly convincingly.

Can you support your allegation that Apple requires payment? Perhaps you are unaware that Apple transferred the Thunderbolt trademark to Intel. Thunderbolt is not at all proprietary to either Apple or Intel; at least since a couple of years ago. It is Intel who controls Thunderbolt now, and they furnish royalty-free licenses. The allegation is that Intel's policies are holding back Thunderbolt, but Intel denies this fairly convincingly.

It was transferred to Intel nearly 2 years ago.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/20/thunderbolt_trademark_rights_will_be_transferred_from_apple_to_intel.html

Good gawd, pull your head out of the sand and visit some other tech websites. Apple is working with controller manufacturers right now to manufacture controllers specifically designed to work with iOS devices, both by integrating an iPhone into the controller (turning it into a portable game console) or as a remote controller (likely to turn an Apple TV into a game console with the release of iOS 7's update on the Apple TV).

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/12/apples-ios-developer-guide-hints-at-dedicated-mfi-game-controller this is the only link I found which is negative especially from an Apple website.

It talks about "third-party manufacturers" using a standard interface,but "Previously, a rumor in March claimed Apple was courting developers at the 2013 Game Developers Conference to sign off on a controller to be released sometime in the near future, but the whispers were squashed by the well-connected Jim Dalrymple of The Loop"

All Google needs to do is offer a commercial licence, for a small fee, to all Android OEM's that indemnifies them. This way if Microsoft has an issue with Android or Linux they can take on Google directly. But, we all know that would never happen because Microsoft clearly knows that Google would single handily invalidate all of their obvious, worthless and prior art ridden patents one by one.

That will not happen because Google can't protect itself(i.e the Motorola it bought which loses billions every year by the way because of making crap phones), how can it protect its partners? It's about to get bitchslapped for trying to abuse FRAND standard patents on H.264 and WiFi for extortion.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/06/eu-rules-googles-motorola-abused-patents-in-seeking-injunction-against-apple
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/26/4271432/does-anyone-know-why-google-bought-motorola
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/technology/07iht-google07.html?_r=0
http://www.zdnet.com/in-microsoft-patent-spat-ruling-hints-that-google-grossly-overpaid-for-motorola-7000014582/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/motorola-buy-delivers-google-more-heartbreak-than-help.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slapped-google-around-in-court-and-its-becoming-clear-google-overpaid-for-motorola-2013-4

BES supports iOS and Android. Doesn't look like it requires third party software.

You can create an account with just a $10 gift card.

No, I can't. People in the US, UK and a handful of other countries can, but for many, including in Apple's biggest market, it is not an option.

They only asked him about Samsung

That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.

In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning

Maybe I misunderstood your original statement... You said "From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate." He was questioned about whether he had any relationships to the parties in the case, Samsung and Apple, which is what I thought you were referring to. He was never questioned about his relationship with Seagate. From the opinion denying juror misconduct:

Despite [the Seagate/Samsung] relationship, counsel for Samsung did not ask Mr. Hogan about this relationship with Seagate, and did not seek to elicit any information about whether that relationship might influence Mr. Hogan’s view in any way.

He was also asked if he had been in any litigation, and as you note, he failed to mention the prior trial... However, during voir dire, Samsung looked into Hogan's file and saw the bankruptcy proceeding, and then ignored it:

Samsung has waived its claim for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial based on Mr. Hogan’s alleged dishonesty during voir dire. Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan’s litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.

As I said earlier, it's likely that Samsung did know of Hogan's relationship to Seagate and kept that information secret so that they could bring it up, as they did, in the event of an adverse jury decision. I'm sure they would have kept it silent if he had been biased the other way, filled with loyal feelings for Seagate/Samsung, and the jury came back with a decision of non-infringement. That's not allowed in real court, though, even if it's standard fare for Boston Legal.

Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology, and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.

(i) What makes that "seemingly weak"? I mean, check out that independent claim - it's huge, and really narrow. It's a weak patent from an enforcement perspective, but less so from a validity perspective. Plus, it's not even a software patent - it's only claiming a hardware machine.

(ii) In my experience, many inventors think that their patents are strong and valid, while others are flimsy or overly broad. Nothing leads to the conclusion that an inventor must think their own patent is flimsy and therefore want to defend other flimsy patents, as opposed to the conclusion that the inventor thinks their own patent is strong and wants to get rid of flimsy patents to clear the chaff from the wheat.

Honestly, jury selection is complicated, with factors on both sides. Samsung may have kept Hogan on the jury because, being an engineer, they thought he was like many Slashdotters and would be anti-software patents (particularly wit

> Please describe the abuse of monopoly power that you accuse Apple of doing.

Ask and ye shall receive.

> Now in the MS days, MS persuaded, threatened, and outright bribed OEMs not to install Netscape.

Apple bans non-webkit browsers in their app-store... period... end of story. That's why there's no Firefox for non-jailbroken Ipads... http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156392/mozilla-firefox-not-coming-to-iphone-ipad-until-apple-relaxes-ios-browser-rules

Reselling media is only evil and wrong this week. It'll be absolutely fine, 'innovative' and mainstream as soon as Amazon, Apple or Google starts doing it:

http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-lands-patent-on-marketplace-for-selling-on-used-digital-content-7000010917/

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/07/apples-digital-content-resale-and-loan-system-could-allow-drm-transfers-between-end-users

iTards.

If Apple implements fingerprint tech, it's not going to be like useless and easily fooled face recognition tech that some Fandroids were boasting about a while ago. This finger print tech needs to be very secure and not easily bypassed, otherwise what's the point?

LOL.