Slashdot Mirror

Most people would not consider 10% of the market a significant slice...

Apple granted patent for head-mounted display tech. Clearly these two stories are related, right? Sounds totally awkward.

Boom another major blow to Samsung and Android Tuesday and then the ruling specifically addresses any Geek's desire for a 'pure Android' to boot.

This could not get any more specific than Tuesday's Judgements. Here are some of them...

"The record contains evidence that, while Apples U.S. market share in unit shipments may have continued to grow from the third to fourth quarters of 2011, even after release of the Galaxy Nexus on December 15, 2011, Apples U.S. market share fell by several percentage points in the first quarter of 2012 i.e., the three months after the Galaxy Nexus was released while Samsungs U.S. market share grew by roughly the same percentage points," the order read.

"The Court found that Apple had shown a clear likelihood that Samsung has and will continue to take market share from Apple, and moreover that it is doing so with a product that likely infringes for of Apple's likely valid patents." ...

Though Samsung attempted to block the injunction with its own argument that it would suffer irreparable harm, the court was not sympathetic to the line of reasoning. "The harms identified by Samsung in the coming weeks or months are no more than the expected harms that accompany any enjoined business" ...

Here is proof Judge Koh clearly knows how to think and reason...

"Furthermore, Samsungs very argument at the hearing that it would be irreparably harmed by lost Galaxy Nexus sales to Apple, due to the strength of Apples platform stickiness and brand loyalty among its customers, undermines the position it has maintained during this litigation that
Galaxy Nexus customers are unlikely to buy Apple products in Samsungs stead. Samsungs argument instead supports Apples position that the Galaxy Nexus is taking sales away from Apple." ...

And the one that startled me the most as quoted from the blog AppleInsider...

"Samsung also made an absurd argument that a sales ban of the Galaxy Nexus would harm "certain "techie" consumers who value the pure Android operating system and who will be unable to find any close substitute within the same price point." The court summarily dismissed the claim, citing Samsung's own frequent assertion that it sells more than one smartphone."

--

There are plenty of cheap older Androids to choose from!

The Injunction against Samsung now stands and is in full effect. ...

Sources
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/03/court_denies_samsungs_motion_to_stay_galaxy_nexus_injunction.html
and
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3136023/samsung-request-stay-galaxy-nexus-injunction-denied-Apple

You do realize that the patent you're talking about predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents being used in this case, all but one predates the launch of Android, and one of them dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.

As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.

Compare Samsung's hardware design for phones and tablets before and after the release of the iPhone and iPad.

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg

Apple is using the only mechanism available to fight this blatant theft of IP.

Lots of valid points. However here the percentage of profit does matter. In the case of Android you have ~50% market share and iOS gives you ~30% market share. Those numbers are very comparable as they differ only by about a factor of 1.6 (i.e. they are the same order of magnitude). This means that if Apple rakes in 80% of the smartphone profit and Android phones rake in 20%, then here it means that Apple is literally taking majority of the profit even though their market share is smaller slightly. Also for any particular model Apple owns the top 3 slots of model sales as is expected considering the market share is taken by just a few models while the competition is made up of hundreds of models by many manufacturers with varying quality and OS implementations.

For a developer the iOS framework should be THE platform both for market penetration as well as unit sales (iPod touch goes there too) and the fact that the average iOS user is more likely to actually pay for applications unlike Android users (sorry, but Linux mentality and el cheapo phones target by default the people who don't want to pay for stuff). So if you are looking for a platform to earn money, then this is the platform. You may also branch out and do Android hoping that you can enhance sales, but it may well be that the support cost for keeping the software up to date will not be covered by the platform at all (and you'd need to support a lot wider plethora of devices/OS versions, in iOS case it's just 1-2 OS releases to target majority and only 1-2 devices).

And the reason Apple has not reduced the price of iPhone is very simple. They don't need to. They have not reached supply-demand balance meaning they still sell every single phone that is produced as it leaves the factory assembly line. Also, they have made the great strategic move of transitioning the devices down the line to cheaper modes effectively targeting also those segments of sales without needing to set up separate manufacturing lines as those already existed for the phones when they came out. This method has been only in place for the past two years and we can assume Apple will keep doing it so that as a developer and a customer you'll get the benefit of the platform no matter what you purchase power.

And of course as a consumer you should take note of the benefits as well. I think the one screaming difference is the battery power where an iPhone 4/4S will last 2-3 days while majority of Android based phones are hard pressed to last a day at decent usage. Then the usage experience must be good as well because Apple has the best user retention statistics (sorry couldn't find a newer plot). And the vertically integrated ecosystem with paying customers being able to watch movies across devices with seamless syncing etc etc does lock one into the ecosystem quite well and provides a plethora of options inside it that you don't even want to go looking outside the system as there's no other such integration there yet.

Yeah, they tried that, as someone referenced above.

The problem is, the competitor they went to is LG, also an Android maker. That didn't turn out so well (quality problems), so they had to turn back to Samsung (haha).

There's also CMI, but they have quantity issues.

Yeah, but it could allow you to capitalize on the royalties and settlements like a true patent troll. Rumor has it that Nokia earned more from its patent settlement with Apple than from selling Windows phones, just like Microsoft earns more collecting royalties from Android vendors than from actual Windows Phone 7 licensing.

Yeah baby, creating standard essential technologies is what patent trolling is all about... /. should've been taken down when it still mattered.

Yeah, but it could allow you to capitalize on the royalties and settlements like a true patent troll. Rumor has it that Nokia earned more from its patent settlement with Apple than from selling Windows phones, just like Microsoft earns more collecting royalties from Android vendors than from actual Windows Phone 7 licensing.

To be fair to Apple, Samsung called a lot of this shit onto itself by so blatantly lifting design elements from the iPad.

Oh really?

What was your question exactly?.

If that is true (I don't know what the numbers are), then high end screens account for 4 million out of 55 million screens sold or about 7%. While margins are undoubtedly higher on those screens, it doesn't really address the issue of which has more weight with manufacturers, the 7% at the top or the 93% at the bottom. Your argument depends on the profit margins of those 7% of screens. According to Digitimes, Apple pays over $150 each for the screens, which is about 3x the price of a run-of-the-mill laptop screen and $50 more per screen than Asus pays for its IPS panels. It doesn't give us any insight into profit margins, but it is possible that margins are high enough for those components to be worth more than the 93%.

We also know that two of Apple's three main suppliers, LG and Sharp, both lost significant money last year (but screens are a small part of their businesses), while Apple's other supplier, Samsung, made lots of money, but 70% of their profit was came from their own phones, tablets, and laptops.

Without more information, the only lesson I see here is that components in general are not a very profitable business, which means that Apple's suppliers have a strong incentive to favor their own products over Apple's. While Apple, no doubt, wields influence at these companies, I am not seeing the kinds of revenue and profits that would allow Apple to dictate terms or buy out supplies of components also desired by these companies own products ( as suggested above).

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150674/apple-rumored-to-pay-at-least-150-for-macbook-pro-retina-display-panels

This page lists the maximum operating altitude of the new MBPs as 10,000 feet. Does that mean you can't use them on airplanes? That seems silly... The only moving parts on there should be fans, right? No hard drive to crash. So why such a low service ceiling?

That would only result in Apple going elsewhere

They already tried. It didn't go well.

It also seems like Apple relies on Samsung for the iPhone 5 processor, too. Maybe Samsung is the only manufacturer with the right set of tools for building them?

Apple has had no success with AppleTV

In all of 2011, when the Apple TV did not see an update, the company sold a total of 2.8 million devices in the 12-month span. But the company is easily on pace to beat that, with 2.7 million sold through the first five months of 2012.

While LG has a deal for the iPhone, my comments are about the iPad3 display. LG couldn't meet Apple's quality requirements for that particular display (at least in time for the initial run). http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/149539/retina-display-production-issues-persist-for-apples-new-ipad.

Samsung and LG are fierce competitors, but LG is only about a fifth the size of Samsung in terms of revenue and LG actually lost money last year, compared to the more than $20 billion in profits for Samsung. Samsung is in a better position here, but the tech world can be fickle, so who knows.

I would consider the Apple insider a pro-Apple publication and they claim that LG is not making displays for Apple at this time because they haven't been able to meet Apple's quality standards. The only higher density display that has been proven (because someone actually took the device apart) is Samsung (link attached).

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/20/sharp_meets_apples_standards_for_ipad_retina_display_lg_lags_behind___report.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/15/teardown_of_apples_new_ipad_finds_samsung_built_retina_display_a5x_cpu.html

This is, of course, missing the point. Samsung is one of the 20 largest companies in the world (by revenue). Apple's business represents less than 1% of Samsung's profits. Samsung's most profitable business right now is the same as Apple's, phones and tablets. Samsung just overtook Nokia to become the world's largest phone maker and they shipped almost 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter. Whether or not Apple continues to do business with Samsung will make little difference.

I would consider the Apple insider a pro-Apple publication and they claim that LG is not making displays for Apple at this time because they haven't been able to meet Apple's quality standards. The only higher density display that has been proven (because someone actually took the device apart) is Samsung (link attached).

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/20/sharp_meets_apples_standards_for_ipad_retina_display_lg_lags_behind___report.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/15/teardown_of_apples_new_ipad_finds_samsung_built_retina_display_a5x_cpu.html

This is, of course, missing the point. Samsung is one of the 20 largest companies in the world (by revenue). Apple's business represents less than 1% of Samsung's profits. Samsung's most profitable business right now is the same as Apple's, phones and tablets. Samsung just overtook Nokia to become the world's largest phone maker and they shipped almost 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter. Whether or not Apple continues to do business with Samsung will make little difference.

Interesting, where exactly will Apple go? Apple put out the requirements for the iPad3 ("retina") display. Only one company in the world was able to meet their quality requirements, Samsung. Why do you think that all the first run of iPad3's will have Samsung displays?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/13/samsung_is_sole_supplier_of_apples_ipad_retina_displays___report.html

Apple is still doing business with Samsung because it doesn't have a choice, not because it wants to. Samsung is still doing business with Apple because they are making money.

Closer to 10% now

No, still only 5%...

You can upgrade Tiger to Snow Leopard for $29. I know, I did it. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/08/27/apples_snow_leopard_disc_will_install_on_tiger_macs.html

Why are people modding this person as a troll? Are Slashdot users that ignorant???

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/29/google_earns_80_of_its_mobile_revenue_from_ios_just_20_from_android.html

Here are March 2012 statistics that show how the stores are doing, and notice how 1.3% of apps downloaded and installed on Android devices are paid for!

I would argue that slashdot mod's in this situation are the trolls not the person making the comment! Mod me down I don't care, but let's keep things at facts shall we...

"So what Google makes on Android is still a whole lot more than what it makes on iPhones."

You sure about that? Google earns 80% of its mobile revenue from iOS, just 20% from Android.

Google apparently earns 80% of its mobile revenue from iOS devices and 20% from Androids devices.

Rumors are already appearing:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/02/apple_working_on_physical_game_controller_for_ipads_and_other_ios_devices_.html

What do you think of that initiative in the US to have all textbooks be digital in five years?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/30/apple_others_challenged_to_make_digital_textbooks_a_reality_in_five_years.html

I guess books could be loaded on the devices, not needing internet access for most functions, but still I'd like to know if you have some take on this.

A couple of thoughts:

If my wife is any indication, tablets (the natural target of the e-texts) will be embraced much more enthusiastically than computers. Although she is considered a technology early adopter in her school, she struggles with what we /.ers would consider rudimentary use of our iMac at home. In contrast, she and some of her colleagues are totally caught up with their iPads.

Our local system is already shifting its technology strategy toward tablets, assuming they can get the town to approve the funding this year.

Your question anticipated this, but, yes, a key benefit of e-texts is that they can be loaded onto readers and aren't reliant on internet access. Internet access at my wife's school is unreliable; part of the problem is an infrastructure problem, but managing a system-wide network with almost no IT staff is a problem in and of itself. Pre-loaded content is essential.

What do you think of that initiative in the US to have all textbooks be digital in five years?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/30/apple_others_challenged_to_make_digital_textbooks_a_reality_in_five_years.html

I guess books could be loaded on the devices, not needing internet access for most functions, but still I'd like to know if you have some take on this.

After all, AT&T's shoddy network encouraged huge numbers to switch to other carriers the moment Apple allowed them to. In business having a poor product might allow you to gain in the short term but is a huge detriment in the long term.

That can't possibly prove anything wrong, because it itself is wrong.

The secret has been out for over a year that AT&T did not lose any significant number of users to other iPhone carriers when exclusivity ended. They actually GAINED customers, and they GAINED more iPhone 4S customers than did Verizon or any of the other iPhone carriers.

So your premise is totally wrong.

The huge detriment you speak of, on the other hand is accruing to the carriers that gain the iPhone, but not for the reason you expect. Selling the iPhone is huge drain on a carriers bottom line.

According to CNN-Money: all carriers that carry the iPhone lose money on it over what they were making previously. If AT&T has a network problem it has been caused directly by the iPhone and iPhone users. From lame Infinion chipsets that brought the towers to their knees early, to the data sucking ways of the typical iphone user.

Between 2009 and 2010, Verizon averaged EBITDA service margin of 46.4% per quarter. In the first quarter that the iPhone went on sale, that fell to 43.7%. Last quarter, when Verizon sold a record 4.2 million iPhones, its margin plunged to 42.2%.

This is not to say I have any argument with the subject of this story, namely the suspicion that carriers are hording bandwidth and creating artificial shortage.

You have made it clear what you are. No need to elaborate.

Barbed wire around a Foxconn factory

Please bear in mind that your gaping-minded ah hominem attacks are perfect encouragement to continue digging for dirt on thug Foxconn and thug Apple. And there is plenty of dirt to find so this should be fun. Thankyou.

Your analogy falls apart in recent years though, when you look at the popularity of the iPad and iPhone. Still closed systems, but more "open" options still can't touch them, sales-wise.

Right....

"Mobile operating systems:
Gartner's Q3 2011 unit numbers total 115 million, with Google's Android shipping on 60 million smartphones, Nokia's Symbian on 19 million and Apple's iOS on 17 million.[32"
"Predictions for 2012: (Gartner): 630 million units; Android 49% / iOS 19% / BlackBerry 13% / Windows 11% / Symbian 5% / Other 3%.[37] (Taiwan/Market Intelligence Center): Android 40% / iOS 19% / Windows 17% / Other 24%.[38] (IDC) 582 million units total.[39]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

"Apple's iOS gained 1.4 percent market share between October of 2011 and January of 2012. That put Apple in second place, behind Google's Android which grew its U.S. market share 2.3 percentage points in the same period."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/08/ios_android_increase_smartphone_market_share_while_all_others_lose_ground.html

"According to the latest number by IDC, Android gained significant market share in 2011 and is expected to gradually increase its dominance in the tablet sector over the next few years. IDC predicts that Android tablets will overtake iOS by 2015,"
http://androidandme.com/2012/03/tablets-2/android-tablet-market-share-to-eclipse-ios-by-2015/

Here are a few http://macscan.securemac.com/spyware-list/

Regardless of whether you have had or haven't had virus/spyware issues on OSX, when the CEO of the company that makes it advises you to use an actual AV, you probably should. Not to mention, if one OSX system on your network is compromised, all of them are likely to be so, or says a study posted not too long ago (can't find it atm).

The point it, you'd have to be bonehead stupid to nor protect yourself regardless of what OS you run on your systems.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. It wasn't me who did all those unethical things. If you want it to stop, send Tim Cook an email.

Use the MCSE mantra:
1. Perform virus scan.
2. If that doesn't work, find a different program that will display a reassuring green graphic.
3. If that doesn't work, reboot.
4. If that doesn't work, reformat, reinstall.
5. If that doesn't work, GOTO 1.

Microsoft wouldn't know anything about data center running if it were chase aftering them at full speedo.

Google this: "Microsoft Sidekick / Danger"

http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/10/t-mobile-sidekick-disaster-microsofts-servers-crashed-and-they-dont-have-a-backup/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/173470/microsoft_redfaced_after_massive_sidekick_data_loss.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/11/microsofts_danger_sidekick_data_loss_casts_dark_on_cloud_computing.html

you may find this interesting. an article about how motogoog is abuisng its frand patents to achieve market share, which is anti-compentetive and now eu is investigating. who's evil now, biatch!

one two.

you may find this interesting. an article about how motogoog is abuisng its frand patents to achieve market share, which is anti-compentetive and now eu is investigating. who's evil now, biatch!

one two.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns
"I emphasize this point because it is the most important failure that would-be prognosticators make in considering future trends. Most technology forecasts ignore altogether this âoehistorical exponential viewâ of technological progress. That is why people tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short term (because we tend to leave out necessary details), but underestimate what can be achieved in the long term (because the exponential growth is ignored)."

Just look at any recent robotics videos and think again. Self-driving Google cars. The US military flying drones. Flexible manipulators. Wasp-like construction robots. The videos go on and on. Just one:
http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

The exponential progress is starting to show. The flashover to some other economic regime may be sooner than you think now. Even China is automating to assure quality and reduce labor costs and management costs.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/31/foxconn_to_substitute_workers_with_1_million_robots_in_3_years.html

It's not Apple's plant.

True, but Apple gives them most of their business, like when Apple bought Samsung's entire supply of ram, almost half of the world's supply of NAND Flash RAM, for the 3GS.

If Apple said "Pay them more, give them less hours and more time off or we'll go elsewhere" Foxconn would, in a heartbeat, because they have no choice, Apple is the majority of Foxconn's business.

I love my iPhone, but this whole mess really has me thinking twice about my next phone. If there was another smartphone that ran IOS and had a more "ethical" factory I'd probably purchase that rather than another iPhone, even if it was a bit more (10%? 20%?).

Everything I've read says that the default is to allow signed and MAS apps only, but you can change it to run unsigned apps. How much does it cost to get a developer ID and sign your apps? It's free. You don't need the $99/year license--it's a new program.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/16/gatekeeper_to_add_optional_app_restrictions_to_mountain_lion.html

Also, notice the "and" part in my first sentence. You don't need to be in the MAS to have a signed app. You do, however, need to be in the MAS in order to take advantage of iCloud.

I read about those dormitories more than two or three years ago. I'd have a hard time pinpointing when I first heard of it, but it's most definitely more than two years ago. Google "foxconn dormitories", and you'll get pages and pages of hits dated between May and September of 2010. I'm looking for stuff dated further back, because I know that I heard of suicides much further back than that.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/06/14/photos_inside_foxconns_ipod_city.html
Jun 14, 2006 – One photo shows shows a dormitory within E3 -- a Foxconn-owned manufacturing facility responsible for churning out iPod nanos -- packed ...

More than five years old. I can't say that I became aware of conditions there in 2006 - maybe I did, maybe I didn't. But, the news has been out there.

- Walled gardens, vendor lock in

They are a company who manufactures proprietary products. I can't think of a single proprietary company who does not have an aspect of vendor lock-in. And I'm not even sure what element of Apple's offering would be considered lock-in (unless you're talking about the App Store).

- Taking down applications from the App Store and including versions in iOS

I think you'll find more-often-than-not that Apple takes features from jailbreak apps rather than those sold in the App Store. Fair game.

- Spurious litigation and anti-competitive lawsuits in Germany and Australia

I'll admit this is some pretty poor form. I do, though, think it's fairly obvious if you look at the smartphone industry before the iPhone vs after the iPhone you'll see how many other brands have copied Apple's look and feel. Not that look and feel should be patentable, but the entire industry was sitting on their hands selling mediocre products and then as soon as Apple releases their product they all rush to sell the same thing. Where's the innovation? Things like this are pathetic.

- CarrierIQ, GPS tracking privacy gaffes

At least iOS asked you if you wanted to opt-in for tracking (CarrierIQ). Other OS'es did not. I think you'll also find that Android had a similar 'bug' where a user's GPS location was tracked along with wifi data.

- Planned failure just after warranty period (ever since the original pod)

I own 7 Apple devices with all bar one (iPhone 4S) out of warranty. None of mine have failed, but I suppose YYMV (especially 11 years ago).

Take a look at learning how to setup and "program" FileMaker Pro for small businesses. I am not claiming you can jump in and become an expert in 2-3 months. You need an organized mind and a desire to figure out effective business solutions. It will require a lot of FMPro training of one type or another and you might work with one of the certified developers in your area. Plenty of books exist on database development, so the core knowledge is out there.

FileMaker is also entering the larger company markets, too, what with their iPad & iPhone apps connecting back to the FMPro on a server.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/27/filemaker_highlights_successful_deployment_of_ipads_by_austin_texas.html

http://www.filemaker.com/

Why quote wikipedia? It was handy.

You are wrong! (stop quoting Wikipedia and do your own research.

Sigh, do I really need to do a google search for you?

Xcode 4 available to all on Apple's Mac App Store for $4.99
Hacker News | Xcode now costs US$ 4.99
What Changes with XCode 4 Not Being Free Anymore?

Do you need more? I've got a ton of results.

People are buying the Galaxy Tab?

Now that there is a CA$100 price drop someone might.

the only product Apple arguably could have been accused of having a monopoly on was portable music players, where there were plenty of competitors in the market.

Of course - with Apple there is no monopoly at 70%+ of a market, but if Google gets 65% of a market, then it has a monopoly!

Google search U.S. market share: 65.6% Nov 2011 [bloomberg.com]
Google search global market share: 69.7% q2 2010
iPad U.S. tablet market share: 82% May 2011
iTunes U.S. digital music market share: 66.2% q3 2010
iPod U.S. mp3 player market share: 76% July 2010

you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods.

monopoly
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

Google has lower market share in search than many Apple products do in their respective categories (figures latest I can find for each product):

Google search U.S. market share: 65.6% Nov 2011
Google search global market share: 69.7% q2 2010
iPad U.S. tablet market share: 82% May 2011
iTunes U.S. digital music market share: 66.2% q3 2010
iPod U.S. mp3 player market share: 76% July 2010

It seems to me that Google does not have a monopoly in search; it would be a funny monopoly that had 30% to 35% of the market controlled by its competitors. But if you insist that they do, then you should also say that Apple has various monopolies in its respective markets, and should similarly be subject to anti-trust scrutiny.

You may have jinxed yourself. "The Samsung Galaxy S smartphone and 7-inch Galaxy Tab will not receive the latest version of Android, because Samsung has said its custom TouchWiz user interface, not Google's operating system, is too taxing on the hardware."

First of all, I'm against Apple's abuse of the patent system just as much as the average slashdotter, though I also think they're on similar footing with every other company. Not that this makes what they're doing good, but that's how the game is played these days.

However, I do feel the need to address this particular point:

> Everything they've "invented" is nothing but mashups of technologies that already
> exist in software frameworks made by people other than Apple.

Yet, for some reason, no one else on the planet has been able to combine these existing technologies as well or as successfully as Apple.

The iPod was not the first MP3 player, but far and away the best selling for ten years. The iPhone was not the first smartphone but it has over half the industry's profits with just 1/20th of the market. And then Apple came along with the iPad and sold more tablets in one year than the whole rest of the PC industry had sold in the previous (almost) decade.

When you say "They are a decade late to the smart phone race, but they claim to be the most prolific innovators in the market." -- can you look at this slide of what were the state-of-the-art smartphones at the time of the iPhone's release and really claim that Apple was not an innovator in the smartphone market? If not, can you explain why every single major manufacturer now makes phones that strongly resemble the iPhone?

If Apple is "just" stealing everyone else's ideas and adding no value to the mix, then their success ought to be easy to replicate, right? Or maybe you're wrong, and they are doing good work, and you're just unable to see just what it is they're doing.

And if you think all their success is "just" because of good marketing--well, that oughtta be easy enough to replicate too, right? Just go find a good marketing company and give them some money, right? Hell, if cigarette companies can sell things that will kill you, selling anything can't be that hard, right?

One other point: your claim that "they steal from the open source community" is flat out wrong. (At least in terms of what matters to the open source world--there, "stealing" means "using and not giving back." "Using" alone does not equal "stealing") Ever heard of WebKit? Apple started out with KHTML, drastically improved, it, and released it. A little company called Google also uses it.

While I mostly agree with your post, it's worth pointing out that (at least with Verizon) Android phones cost more than iPhones.

Now I know that most of the cost of the phone is subsidized in the plan, but the plan cost is the same whether you have an iPhone or an Android.

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues, or is just a temporary tactic that Verizon is trying out.

We have also seen what has happened to Apple on the desktop. Sure it is more than Linux, but it is closer to Linux than to Windows which has to deal with levels of hardware "fragmentation" the likes of which, Android will probably never see.

There seems to be this myth that Macs are popular. Sure, they are popular enough that we all know someone that has one, but really they are just a blip on the radar. MacInsider is reporting that they are only 6.03% of the desktop market. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/03/mac_os_x_install_base_grows_to_over_6_worldwide_13_in_the_us.html

Crowing about how much "people" love a product that gets heavily advertised but only has a 5% market lead over a product that gets no advertising is rediculous. Think about how much effort and money goes into convincing people that OSX is good. Comparing OSX to Linux is like to guys in sitting alone in the basement arguing about who is cooler while everyone else is upstairs at the party.

2. Surely there's some episode of Knight rider where Michael told KITT to wait until a predetermined time to take some action.

I'm pretty sure fiction doesn't count as prior art. Or did I just get wooshed?

I don't know if fiction can be used as prior art for a utility patent, but Samsung seems to think fictional depictions can be used as prior art against a design patent:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/23/samsung_cites_science_fiction_as_prior_art_in_us_ipad_patent_case.html

In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.

Cisco owns both the iPhone and iOS trademarks, and has licensed both of them [1,2] to Apple. No one is fraudulent or infringing in this case.

[1] http://betanews.com/2007/01/09/cisco-offers-to-license-iphone-name-to-apple/
[2] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/08/cisco_licenses_ios_name_to_apple_screenshot_shows_iwork_on_iphone.html