Slashdot Mirror

I will change a bit the order of quoting

As for the Zune, it's clearly a media player UI. That Metro has that style is unsurprising, but the original Zune in no way portends Metro.

How can say so it's beyond my comprehension. Have a look at this side-by-side picture of Zune V1 and V2: http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune I'm pretty sure everyone can recognize traits of the same design language.

Metro and WP7 before it were a striking change from the Windows GUI and Windows Mobile. The changes that they made were similar to the ones Apple made of getting rid of much of what makes a PC OS a PC OS.

TBH, I think this is simply a common belief coming from Apple marketing department and channeled through Apple fan boys. If anything, I'd say that Microsoft GUIs are exactly what were already under change. Apple simply pushed the changes to happen (far) more quickly.

For example, have a look at these:

1. Zen Portable Media Center (announced 2003, release 2004). This is probably the most stretched example. However, it's the first one I could trace back regarding the shift to typography based GUIs as Metro. Interface example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Media_Center
2. Windows Media Center (around 2006). This is the first clear example of where MS was hading to with GUIs for devices that were not regular PCs. Early interface examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Media_Center_Edition and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn_WwstUIlE
3. Zune device and software (around 2006-2007). The first generation already headed to typography based UI, later generations are clearly Metro styled. Examples of the device OS here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune and here http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune example of the software here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_Software
4. XBox 360 (around 2008). Again, first generations (of the Dashboard) were only seminal, the new one is clearly Metro. Examples are here http://news.cnet.com/hands-on-with-the-new-xbox-360-dashboard and the new one here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1home30rock0531.JPG
5. Windows Mobile 6.5 (around 2010). With 6.5 you can clearly see similarities with Metro. Then again, the real Metro was around the corner. Still, you can see there's a continuity from the Zune (2007). Examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_mobile

Save all pictures somewhere, review the Metro design language article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language) and then tell me again that Microsoft started changing GUIs after Apple push.

MS was already undertaking changes in various GUIs and I can clearly see the Metro design behind those changes. They may have not spelt out a name for it, and/or formally defined design rules, but I can clearly see the common roots. They already had the grounds and simply came up with the concept of tiles that was new.

Prior to the iPhone, MS's answer to tablets and phones was to shoe-horn in Windows. Apple was the first to make a tablet OS designed specifically *for* the tablet, and no

No, for Linux.

(Yes, I know ChromeOS is a specific distro, but it's a chrome plugin as a Linux .so library, so the chances it'll run on other distros are pretty high)

Digital picture frame from 2006:
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
It looks exactly like an iPad, and exactly like the "electronic device" in Apple's design patent.

Now you'll probably say "but that's not a tablet!". I would reply that we're talking about design here, and confusingly similar looks, not operation. In fact the behavior of the device is explicitly called out as not being part of the design patent Apple filed [1].

Furthermore if how you use something matters, rather than trade dress, we can just call the Galaxy Tab a "digital picture frame and music player", and close the case in Samsung's favor.

[1] Patent title: "Electronic Device"
Primary Claim: "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."
Label for only picture showing someone using the device: "FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram of the use of the electronic device thereof the broken lines being shown for illustrative puposes only and form no part of the claimed design. "
IOW, there is nothing whatsoever in this patent that is inconsistent with a digital picture frame and music player, and they are not claiming anything in the patent that is specific to a tablet.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D504,889.PN.&OS=PN/D504,889&RS=PN/D504,889

Nope. Dedicated amateurs often do better than the professionals. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/20/when-it-comes-to-forecasting-apples-earnings-amateurs-are-bett/

The professionals also tend to have blind spots ...

You are an idiot.

Excellent, a picture of a Samsung product that only looks like an iPad in one single picture, which happens to be the picture you used, of course, which came out in 2006 which was two years after Apple registered their design, which Samsung then went on to help them build. People didn't buy the iPad based on the Samsung Frame, but people did buy the Tab because of the iPad, or so Apples filling says, your mistake is thinking that I give a shit either way, simply because I can see the comedy and fact in what both sides are trying to say.

I don't like vague patents but I also think it's pretty clear that Samsung was trying to cash in on Apples success and that the Tab looks like an iPad, more so than I can say for any other tablet on the market.

And as much as Samsung want to protest otherwise, this looks nothing like an iPad.

You are an idiot.

>(stole another's property)

Have you READ the apple patents in question ? If implementing similiar tech in some android platforms is "stealing their property" then I'm robbing your house if I happen to paint mine the same color... and this while your house is white !

Ohh? http://www.engadget.com/2010/Patent

#7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices

This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/>

Yeah, that's an overly broad software patent if I ever saw one. Which you for some reason didn't while researching the patents. And I could give you more - but why don't you actually browse those patents yourself?

The reason now is "in for a penny, in for a pound." How much of a software company's worth is the value of their patent portfolio?

Let's look at Google, and their project Android. Android was recently attacked by a series of patent infringement suits. These guys, Oracle, a few others.

How do they respond? They purchase Motorola Mobility, for $12.5 billion. Suddenly, bang! They have a gigantic war chest of mobile patents. Now the situation changes. Now it's like the guy who goes to see the dentist, sits down in the chair, and when the doctor comes in with the drill he grabs the doc by the balls and says "Let's not hurt each other." Suddenly these heavy hitters have something to fear.

Now the other side of the coin.

Google just plunked down $12.5B to defend itself from software patents. That's how much it was worth to them. Sure, they get Motorola Mobility as well in the deal. But we all know why they made the purchase. For the patents. Cheaper than going to the courts. How much of that 12.5 do you think the patents were valued at? How much did Google stand to lose fighting Android? Same number pretty much. Probably more than 5 billion. Probably less than 10.

Now imagine if software patents were suddenly made invalid. That is a LOT of money to suddenly go *poof*. And that's just one instance. Think of every tech company that has a patent war chest. How much value they place on it. How much money they make in licensing. Motorola Mobility just was purchased because of their patent "wealth".

If that all suddenly goes away it'll wreak havoc in the tech sector. All patent holding companies will have to be revalued. Expect companies to lose 20%, 30%...50%... What do you think that'll do for jobs in the tech sector? Your job?

I freaking hate software patents, but now that they're here and companies lean so heavily on them for valuation...it's going to be a rough day when they go away. Going to be a *lot* of unhappy stock holders and a lot of lost jobs.

Recently the Nook Color got an update. The 1.3 software update seems to have significantly improved speed. YouTube videos are now watchable. They are still a bit slow, but not completely unwatchable like before.

I think a YouTube app would help a lot, but there isn't one in the Nook store yet.

Oh, and now that I've spent $250 on a Nook Color, a real Android 3.2 tablet is shipping for $100 more:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/12/acer-iconia-tab-a100-review/

But my wife likes the Nook the way it is, and we are going to keep it.

steveha

Wait! Australia isn't a country?? Wow. I must suck at geography...

The fact that the display booth at IFA was hastily covered up just smells of desperation on Apple's part.

Are you suggesting that somebody from Apple went round Samsung's booths removing Samsung products?

I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that Samsung were in any way forced to remove the 7.7 from the trade show. It wasn't for sale, so they weren't in breach of any injunctions. What it sounds like, is that Samsung have realised the publicity value of this whole situation, and removed the 7.7 from the show voluntarily in order to start a media feeding frenzy.

Engadget and Slashdot might be a LITTLE bit biased towards geeks who would probably buy a Galaxy Tab over an iPad anyway.

I really doubt most of Apple's target market cares.

Not even close! Consider the recent review on Engadget for the Philips GoGear 3 media player. It's a solid product - and so, to have SOMETHING to complain about, Engadget complains about buttons on the bottom, that occupy 25% of the front of the device. Yet you never, ever hear a peep from Engadget about the fact the iPhone's screen is just 65% of the front of the device - smaller than the Philips unit they chide for not having enough screen.

Engadget is about as pro-Apple a site as you can get...

Did your linked page originally came from realitydistortionfield.com?

The LG Prada phone was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first announced. Note that this article on the Prada phone is dated before the Iphone was first announced: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/

Likewise, the Ipad closely resembles prior tablets. Here's the Crunchpad prototype from six months before the Ipad was first announced: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

Here's the Knight-Ridder concept tablet from 1994 (16 years before the Ipad was first announced): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&feature=player_embedded#at=139

Sorry fanboys.

So, if visual design is what matters, and not the software (which is different since the iOS is so superior as you would remind us), what do you think about this Samsung digital picture frame from 2006?:
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Form follows function, which is why every TV and computing device is destined to look the same once a level of miniaturization is reached. That's why you see similar tablets in a 1970s TV show ("The Tomorrow People") and a movie from the 1960s ("2001 a Space Odyssey").

Apple certainly is a style trendsetter, but really it is more about bringing things to market that are the closest to what the visionaries have already described. There's a rather clear evolution from other mp3 players through to the ipod, iphone, and then ipad. And yes, along the way things came from non-Apple sources too.. the next iphone will have screen dimensions suspiciously like an HTC EVO, and a notification bar straight from Android. That's what happens in competition.

I'm sorry this conflicts with your worldview that all these nice Apple products were invented in a vacuum.

Since the time overpriced tablets hit the stores, on-line and off, I can't keep wondering why people fee the urge, buying these overpriced gizmos. The netbook, which was on the same boat few years ago, is now, obtainable around $200 price point

The $200 price point for netbooks isn't a new thing. It was what started off the netbook boom in 2007. For a time, "netbook" was defined by some as "subnotebook which you can just buy because it is so cheap".

So, why people are buying tablet at 4-500 dollars price points is beyond my understanding.

I reckon it is because that is the price point for the Apple iPad, and the iPad is currently the gold standard for what a tablet should be like. If you want, you can certainly buy tablets for 200 dollars or less. However, it won't be an iPad, and it won't be from Apple.

I wonder if this will end up hurting Apple because it will start people thinking that if Apple is trying tactics like this to stop sales of the Galaxy Tab, then the Galaxy Tab must offer serious competition to the iPad. Apple normally don't resort to legal tactics to stop competitors since they can usually rely on producing a better product.

The fact that the display booth at IFA was hastily covered up just smells of desperation on Apple's part. Of course it's more complicated than that, but most people won't see it that way. I suspect this battle will just result in bad PR for Apple, and extra publicity for Samsung.

Apple (not the Beatles record label, the one that copied their name) hates copying so much they bully entire countries into banning their competitors. Mind you, they actually do have a sense of humour - at least I'm being charitable and assuming their latest desperate claim over Android itself is a joke. If you can stop laughing long enough after reading that, didn't Andy Rubin do his work on Danger *after* he left Apple? And m$ bought Danger? So by Apples latest barrel-scraping logic, they should be squabbling with m$ too. Oh, and when Andy was 12 I hear he did a paper round, and some of the mags he delivered were tech and so inspired him. The newsagents lawyers would like a word...

I'm just saying that comparing (example) my Iphone 4 camera to a digital SLR is like apples to oranges.

"Apples" to Oranges? Hmmm.......

FWIW, Apples' phones may be restricted by their being stuck in a mobile phone, but so are Oranges'. ;-)

...In their 2011Mac Minis . With app stores pushed to the consumers, Optical Drives seems to fade away. Even Microsoft is supporting natively the .iso files in win8, another nod to a system with no optical drive.

You mean the Corporate states of america where nVida just got the crap kicked out of them in a class action lawsuit about a year ago? To the tune of having to give all affected brand new laptops?

Yea, kindly refrain from spouting nonsense. Companies regularly get hit and found liable in class action lawsuits.

And then NVIDIA got away with giving people who gave up their $2000 laptops "replacement" Compaq CQ-56 laptops with single-core processors worth under $300? While the lawyers got $13 million?

here you go Samsung picture frame of 2006

and quite fitting since apple obviously sourced the design of the first iphone (revealed a year after said appliance) on this.

Die bad apple die! :-P

No, the Samsung Galaxy Tab looks exactly like a Samsung media player from March 2006. It's Apple that's clearly copying - flat, black front, rounded corners metal sides - clearly Apple was inspired by the Samsung product, given that it was out 3 years before the iPad, and a year before the iPhone...

I think that Samsung probably influenced the design of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung circa March 2006. Looks a lot like the iPad - flat, black, rounded corners, silver edges - and it plays media like pictures, movies and music. So it's more of a case of the Samsung Galaxy Tab building on earlier Samsung ID, and Apple copying Samsung.

It's not like Samsung had a picture and media playing frame back in early 2006 that looks just like an iPad. Or more like a Samsung Galaxy Tab.

You mean the Corporate states of america where nVida just got the crap kicked out of them in a class action lawsuit about a year ago? To the tune of having to give all affected brand new laptops?

You mean laptops worth $1,000 less than the laptops they were replacing?
"Milberg LLP, negotiated that they could only receive an entry-level Compaq CQ50, often worth over a thousand dollars less than the computer they would be replacing. "

If I total your Porsche and have to buy you a Kia I don't think I "got the crap kick out" of me, in fact I'd say I won.

You mean the Corporate states of america where nVida just got the crap kicked out of them in a class action lawsuit about a year ago? To the tune of having to give all affected brand new laptops?

Yea, kindly refrain from spouting nonsense. Companies regularly get hit and found liable in class action lawsuits.

A more reasonable comparison:
http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Problem with your thinking is....no tablet looked anything remotely like the ipad until the ipad came out. Look at the picture at the bottom of the link to see the blatant copying Samsung did

Look at the picture inside this link to see the blatant copying Samsung did. Clearly Samsung built a time machine in 2006, jumped ahead to 2010 to see what the iPad would look like, and stole its design to use in their digital picture frame!

As people have been trying to tell you Apple fans, there is nothing innovative about a flat black rectangle with rounded corners. If there is, then it's Apple who should be criticized for ripping off Samsung's design from 2006.

I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/paul-allen-compares-working-with-bill-gates-to-being-in-hell/ :

But the memoir's most intriguing (and controversial) revelations revolve around Allen's personal and professional relationship with Gates, whom he described to Stahl as a gifted businessman with a penchant for being a total jerk.

Gee, that's much stronger than any of the quotes he could find on Jobs.

I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/paul-allen-compares-working-with-bill-gates-to-being-in-hell/ :

But the memoir's most intriguing (and controversial) revelations revolve around Allen's personal and professional relationship with Gates, whom he described to Stahl as a gifted businessman with a penchant for being a total jerk.

For music, Apple is the company that finally ended DRM. For that you should thank and support them, not curse them.

I keep seeing this quoted as gospel. I remember it far differently, in fact Apple publicly complained about DRM for a long time but did very little to leverage their massive buying power (they were basically the only player in town at the time) to rid us of it. It was only when several other big names in the industry started moving towards DRM-free that Apple seemed to realise there had been a sea-change in what customers wanted and, very late in the day, announced that they would follow suit. Of course they did it with the usual marketing elan that made it sound like it was their idea all along, but that's simply not the case if you look at the timelines.

They did this to protect their relevance in the market place, not to give the customer a good deal (look at pretty much everything else they do to see what they really think of DRM), although this is an interesting take on events that suggests Apple's insistance on only supporting either their own DRM (which they were reticent to licence) or DRM-free on iPods is what drove the rest of the industry down the DRM free path. To say they did that to fight DRM would be skewed thinking though, in reality they just wanted to own the distribution model the way they do for Apps (and I'm sure a lot of what they learned with iTunes shaped the Apps model so that it was fully in their favour).

Here you go, already being done.

I was personally looking forward to more WebOS devices though.

Well, reportedly, Samsung is still interested in WebOS. Where before they were interested in licensing it off of HP ( http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/29/hp-confirms-its-in-talks-about-licensing-webos-samsung-tipped/ ), they may now just grab it outright.. even if only as a precautionary move to the recent Google-buys-Motorola move ( http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-webos-rumors-reignite-amid-ex-hp-pc-vp-grab-29174760/ ).

Personally I'm not sure why they'd be doing that. They're going strong with Android - which, while heavily Google-influenced, is under governance of the OHA - while on their lower-end systems they've got their own OS already - Bada.

Though if there's any chance of WebOS going forward, Samsung would be a good place to start. Them or Huawei, perhaps. Not seeing HTC being interested.

Apple got sued for ripping of the UI from Creative and ultimately lost the case.

Minor nitpick: Apple settled. Major nitpick: the suit wasn't about Apple copying Creative's UI, it was about Apple violating Creative's overly broad software patent, a patent for a UI that "enables selection of at least one track in a portable media player as a user sequentially navigates through a hierarchy using three or more successive screens on the display of the player". And if you look at the illustrations in the patent, you will be pushed hard into the crap that is Creative's UI. http://www.engadget.com/2005/08/30/creatives-latest-the-zen-patent/

Fuck Slashdot's support for obvious software patents.

These folks aren't getting it. Bigger is better. I work with many businesses and they would all love a bigger tablet - the size of a piece of paper - like a 13" model. They'd snap those up so fast, it would make the HP fire sale look amateurish.

bigger is better? then how about a 21-inch or a 24-inch one? not exactly portable but they work almost like a tablet if you don't need to move around.

here:
24 inch: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/18/wacom-cintiq-24hd-approved-by-fcc-makes-us-wish-we-went-to-art/

21 inch (and 12 inch) ones:
http://www.wacom.com/en/Products/Cintiq/Compare%20Models.aspx

In its most recent quarter, Acer lost $234 million. Acer has no competitive tablet offering among the dozens of competing Android tablets. And of course the iPad is selling like mad with an expectation of 22 million units sold during the upcoming holiday quarter.

The Acer CEO is a dimwit who's talking smack because there's nothing else he can do to stem the tide of abject failure coming out of his factories. He is basically berating the customers for buying "hot" tablets, particularly the iPad, instead of buying the tried-and-true plastic Wintel units that Acer vomits up. His company bet big on low-margin netbooks and lost, and now he's betting on Intel "ultrabooks".

HP just bailed out of the entire PC business (echoing IBM's decision in 2004), and among the reasons was that the tablet effect is real.

The Acer CEO's effort is better focused on coming up with better products, not whining.

Chattanooga achieved 1Gb/sec on EPB's network without any help at all, and both AT&T and Comcast fighting them every step of the way. The fight went well on up the court system hierarchy but the end result is that the fastest service in the U.S. is now here in tiny Chattanooga. I'm proud of that, and can attest firsthand for the quality and cost savings of their service. We went from roughly 600.00 for phone and internet on our business to 100.00/month. Now, why should we wait or expect to burden Google with this, when the very power to attain this resides in your very own communities.. Takes a little doing tho. Good Luck@!

They had plane-type UAVs do some fly-bys at a hundred meters or so about two weeks in; the helicopter-type capable of close-up pictures weren't used for over a month.

I agree about the problems going in the building - there's no way a heli could do it. The PackBot is the right tool for the entry job. iRobot sent them about a week in, but TEPCO waited weeks more before using them. Training is the only excuse I can think of, and it's pretty thin: I'm sure someone experienced with them would have volunteered to work the first couple weeks until TEPCO employees were ready to go.

2 more words - voids warranty.

I have had 5 defective Moto Droids (and a bad Droid 3). On my last one, when the warranty expired, I flashed CM7, and it was possibly the GREATEST thing that I've experienced on Android. However, if I had done this earlier, I would've had my many hardware warranty claims denied.

Still using it, even though the WiFi is broken. It's a better experience than most of the crap available now.

It is VERY encouraging that Sprint acknowledges this problem:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/19/sprints-fared-adib-we-made-a-conscious-decision-to-scale-back/

I just wish that Big Red would realize this too.

I wonder if that's why Apple is trying to physically get Samsung off the shelves in Europe. There doesn't seem to be much danger of competing Android tablets decimating iPad sales - its pretty clear now that they are not going to succeed unless they are (a) significantly cheaper than the iPad and/or (b) offer something obviously different (not just incrementally better specs such as a slightly faster processor or higher res camera which will be leapfrogged by Apple in a few months time).

So why is Apple trying to block them? Whatever the rights/wrongs of their case, I can't see it succeeding long-term (at most, it will just establish what combination of features make something an iPad lookalike rather than just a tablet so competitors can work around it) - and it risks a Streisand effect. But if the Android Tablet train is about to hit the buffers, getting them off the shelves for a few months now would prevent any more fire sales in the run-up to Xmas.

Personally, I'm still waiting for this which actually seems to tick the "offer something clearly distinct from an iPad" box - but its been "coming soon" for ever and, from the link, I see they've brilliantly decided to up the minimum memory and push up the price. Otherwise, I'll stick with my iPad 1 until we see (a) what MotoGoogle will do or (b) whether the rumors of an Amazon tablet are true.

Um.. Verizon's owners take home several billions quarterly in profits. They should be able to afford not to cut their employees compensation.

What a shameless load of BS.

1) "Innovative iPhone" Nokia Maemo, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/photos/nokia-n810-hands-on/#443985

2) "Innovative iPad" (yep, rounded corners, rectangular shape, large screen, it's such a hard concept...)

Seriously?

Did you even read what you linked to?

Did you look at what was sitting next to it in the review photo? Did you look at the date of the review (9-10 months after the iPhone was shown to the world, and long after rumours of an Apple phone started)? Did you bother to click as far as this link in which you can clearly see that it looks nothing like an iDevice.? As well as the slide out-keyboard and built in stand (which at least shows a bit of thinking different), it has a wide, raised bezel and an inset screen - nothing like the iPhone/iPad's totally flat glass front.

And it seems this is a standard practice at Apple, they aren't afraid of blatantly lying in ads as well: http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg [imgur.com]

You think that Apple grabbed a still from their Star Trek DVD, pimped it, and stuck it in their ad? Not a chance - it would look like crap (by professional typesetting standards, MPEG grabs always do - see the left-hand imgaes) and the studio wouldn't tolerate that.

Far more likely it was one of a pack of publicity stills sent out by the studio to multiple TV/computer manufacturers, retail stores, catalog firms who were in on a product placement deal, and you can bet that the 4:3 version was pimped to look good before it left the studio. Note the position of the "Star Trek" logo (again, the studios wouldn't trust licensees to do that right) - that's not a crop & zoom on a widescreen still.

So, yeah, that picture will have been pimped to hell, but not necessarily by Apple. Everything in adverts has been manipulated to look good (there will have been a "simulated image" disclaimer somewhere on the page) deal with it.

Yes, Apple have had their wrists slapped for false advertising in the past (they were banged to rights when they said the iPhone could access "all of the web" conveniently ignoring the bits that were in Flash or Java). Did anybody say they were angels?

What a shameless load of BS.

1) "Innovative iPhone" Nokia Maemo, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/photos/nokia-n810-hands-on/#443985

2) "Innovative iPad" (yep, rounded corners, rectangular shape, large screen, it's such a hard concept...)

Seriously?

Did you even read what you linked to?

Did you look at what was sitting next to it in the review photo? Did you look at the date of the review (9-10 months after the iPhone was shown to the world, and long after rumours of an Apple phone started)? Did you bother to click as far as this link in which you can clearly see that it looks nothing like an iDevice.? As well as the slide out-keyboard and built in stand (which at least shows a bit of thinking different), it has a wide, raised bezel and an inset screen - nothing like the iPhone/iPad's totally flat glass front.

And it seems this is a standard practice at Apple, they aren't afraid of blatantly lying in ads as well: http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg [imgur.com]

You think that Apple grabbed a still from their Star Trek DVD, pimped it, and stuck it in their ad? Not a chance - it would look like crap (by professional typesetting standards, MPEG grabs always do - see the left-hand imgaes) and the studio wouldn't tolerate that.

Far more likely it was one of a pack of publicity stills sent out by the studio to multiple TV/computer manufacturers, retail stores, catalog firms who were in on a product placement deal, and you can bet that the 4:3 version was pimped to look good before it left the studio. Note the position of the "Star Trek" logo (again, the studios wouldn't trust licensees to do that right) - that's not a crop & zoom on a widescreen still.

So, yeah, that picture will have been pimped to hell, but not necessarily by Apple. Everything in adverts has been manipulated to look good (there will have been a "simulated image" disclaimer somewhere on the page) deal with it.

Yes, Apple have had their wrists slapped for false advertising in the past (they were banged to rights when they said the iPhone could access "all of the web" conveniently ignoring the bits that were in Flash or Java). Did anybody say they were angels?

Tell that to John Carmack
http://www.intomobile.com/2008/08/01/quake-founder-john-carmack-iphone-better-than-dedicated-gaming-systems/
http://www.bnet.com/blog/gadget-guy/john-carmacks-rage-why-the-iphone-game-is-a-success/1038
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/19/ids-carmack-talks-rage-hd-ipads-power-and-future-ios-games/

And you can google many more interviews and statements of him backing up phone gaming as the platform that will win in the long run. Unless you are implying Carmack does not care about specs.

It is when you consider that Verizon has been making a lot more profit. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/verizon-profits-nearly-double-but-miss-wall-street-expectations/ they made four+ billions of dollars in PROFIT in a single quarter. They want to reduce employee benefits/wages at the same time. These workers should strike - at this point the company has shown they don't give a shit about them, and that the only way they're going to keep the same benefits they have now is to show Verizon that it can be hurt worse by taking them away. Henry ford said: There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. You see what's missing here?

This is the article I found it might be for the games but I'm pretty sure it's the new memory.

How about the MOPS? http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/14/mops-shadow-t800-brings-analog-joystick-hearts-and-spades-to-andr/ That has an analog joystick.

According to Engadget, Best Buy won't offer discounts in U.S. stores. However, HP is supposedly offering refunds to those who paid the full $400. From the Engadget piece:

Well, it looks like American Best Buys won't be enjoying the same liquidation sale as our neighbors to the north. A couple of tipsters have reported that the big box electronics retailer has pulled the webOS tablets from its shelves and is shipping them back to HP. The slates have also disappeared from Best Buy's website...
Don't get upset if you already plunked down $400 for 10-inches of webOS goodness -- HP will refund you the difference. Call up the company or the retail partner you purchased it from, and ask. Just be prepared to sit on hold with all the rest of the folks trying to get their cash back.

> ICultists wont touch it with a 10 foot pole at any price because it's
> not made by Apple and everyone else that's on the fence is going
> to see the identical price and buy the Ipad because either they saw
> it on TV more / their ICult buddy recommended it and since they're
> priced the same might as well get what everyone else is talking about

I am SO FUCKING SICK of all this "it's all because of fanboys/marketing/cultishness" shit! EVERY SINGLE MAJOR REVIEW of the TouchPad says it's barely in the same league with the iPad 1 and not even CLOSE to the iPad 2.

And because someone is bound to post a reply asking for proof, here are two major mainstream ones:

• David Pogue, New York Times
  "... the TouchPad doesn't come close to being as complete or mature as the iPad or the best Android tablets..."
• Walt Mossberg, Wall Street Journal
  "Bottom line: ... I can't recommend the TouchPad over the iPad 2"

And if you think the big sites are just dumb and/or Apple whores, how about some tech sites, like Ars Technica or Engadget?

• Engadget
  We all wanted the TouchPad to really compete, to give us a compelling third party to join the iOS and Android boxes on the ballot. But, alas, this isn't quite it... The shortage of apps is a problem, no doubt, but that will change with time. What won't change is the hardware, and there we're left a little disappointed. Holding this in one hand and either an iPad 2 or a Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the other leaves you wondering why you'd ever be compelled to buy the HP when you could have the thinner, lighter alternative for the same money. Meanwhile, the performance left us occasionally wanting and, well, what is there to say.
• Ars Technica
  The HP TouchPad, if it were less expensive, could be an extremely strong, if slightly less polished, alternative to the iPad. But like other recently-released high-profile Android tablets, it's determined to take on the champ. And just like those Android tablets, its hard to recommend over an iPad at the same price.

That said, I would have snapped one up for $99 but it's now Saturday afternoon and there are none to be found. (I went to bed early last night and was out of the house first thing in the morning. Dammit!)

> Non Apple Tables are priced roughly $200-300 too expensive. Get
> them around $199-$299 and they'll sell like gangbusters just like it
> did for Android phones in the mobile market.

There is not magical "make it cheap" dust that can be sprinkled on non-iOS devices. The fact that the OS is free really doesn't amtter much at all. (Remember when everyone thought Linux would take over the desktop because it was considered to be as good as Windows?) Believe it or not, Apple is being DAMN price competitive on the iPad. Do you think multibillion dollar companies are spending billions of dollars to bring tablets to the market and then watching them fail just for fun? No, they're selling them for that much because they HAVE to in order to make any profit at all, and they're failing because they just aren't as good. You CAN NOT MAKE a tablet as good as the iPad for less. It has a good looking, responsive touchscreen, the best battery life out there, and it's within 1mm of being the thinnest as well. Lightest of all the 10" tablets, too, AFAIK. Cheaper tablets have screens that are worse looking and/or less sensitive, they're thicker, they're heavier, AND they have worse battery life.

There ARE cheap Android tablets out there (especially if you include things like the Pandigital Novel and B&N Nook Color) and they ARE NOT SELLING anywhere

What a shameless load of BS.

1) "Innovative iPhone"
Nokia Maemo, 2007:
http://www.engadget.com/photos/nokia-n810-hands-on/#443985

2) "Innovative iPad" (yep, rounded corners, rectangular shape, large screen, it's such a hard concept...)
StarTrek, ages ago:
http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg
IBM, 1990
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10453664-64.html

3) "(when the sizes of the devices are given accurately elsewhere..."
Nope. They are shown at different angles. And there, where it really matters, it is blatantly photoshoped.
And it seems this is a standard practice at Apple, they aren't afraid of blatantly lying in ads as well:
http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg

4) "...anybody who describes merely re-sizing an image as "Photoshopping"..."
is easily understood.