Slashdot Mirror


Apple Hides Samsung Apology So It Can't Be Seen Without Scrolling

An anonymous reader writes "Apple today posted its second Samsung apology to its UK website, complying with requests by the UK Court of Appeal to say its original apology was inaccurate and link to a new statement. As users on Hacker News and Reddit point out, however, Apple modified its website recently to ensure the message is never displayed without visitors having to scroll down to the bottom first."

59 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The lawyers are probably going to get put in front of the bar for their shite advice to these pricks too.

    Banned product, I reckon. And some few billion in compensatory damages to Samsung. It seems the only thing they won't weasel out like a spoilt four-year-old is being slammed down hard financially.

    1. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not saying 'they're done' as in 'they're bankrupt' - wrong context.

      He's saying they've made a pretty serious mistake, which is true; it doesn't matter how big a company you are, there's a point where you can't just ignore the law of the land any longer. This is now the second time that Apple's failed to comply, and the means makes it clear it's deliberate. How do you expect the courts to react to that? Or the people for that matter?

      The UK has a different culture than the US; this won't be seen as 'sticking it to the man' but as childish petulance; it's bad press that Apple does *not* need in a market where they're already behind Samsung. If sanctions go to the EU level then Apple could realistically end up a US-only phone company - so don't underestimate the seriousness of this.

    2. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by GPierce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Way back in the early days of the Mac, Apple should have been able to rule the world. Unfortunately Apple was run by and anal-retentive asshole who actually tried to rule the world. The Developers and hardware manufacturers who could have participated in Apple's success figured out really quickly that Apple didn't want anyone to share in their success.

      So the developers and hardware companies made Microsoft and PC's a success. Apple would have lost out completely, but they actually built a decent graphics display and a few software developers were able to build some very desirable products that couldn't be run on a PC clone.

      MS could have run Apple out of the marketplace at any time, but they didn't have to because Apple had already cut their own throats. And the bean-counters were unable to make Apple competitive company again.

      When Jobs was invited back (out of sheer desperation on the bean-counters part) he invented the iToys and revitalized a dying company, but in 20 or so years he had never learned a thing and was still an anal-retentive asshole.

      Android has already captured 50% of the smartphone market and once it becomes possible for developers to make a buck (without all the walled garden BS) Apple is once again destined for a 5-10% market share - unless the marketing guys for Android think they can make a buck with their own walled garden.

      Unless they finally learn something, that high-flying Apples stock might turn into an excellent opportunity for short-sale speculators Rim used to make more money than god. It didn't take much to turn that around...

       

      --

      When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    3. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, iOS is not OS X derived as Android is Linux derived. iOS is less than OS X (being a crippled OS X minus a lot), whereas Android is more than Linux (being the Linux kernel plus a lot), and Apple TV is tiny, irrelevant, close to nothing compared to TVs and various set top boxes running Linux (TiVo and more). Then you've got pretty much every single popular wireless router except Apple's running Linux.

      So, with iOS not being OS X, and iOS being smaller than Linux, how about not being such a giant wanker.

    4. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those with Apple stocks will be laughing all the way to the bank.

      Laughing nervously at best. Apple stock is down 18% in the last 7 weeks. The most recent news is "down on disappointing iPad Mini sales".

      Death? Not by a long shot, but crashing back to Earth to compete with the rest of the mortals -- most definitely.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by Omestes · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not even counting the marketshare of OS X(which iOS evolved from).

      Does this mean I get to count every device using a *nix OS as well? There is a lot of machines that run *nix, a huge huge number, which probably dwarfs pretty much every other OS. Hell, my TV runs Linux, as does my Bluray...

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The most recent news is "down on disappointing iPad Mini sales".

      Where are these sales figures?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by vakuona · · Score: 5, Insightful

      iPad mini is estimated to have sold 1.5m in the first weekend. It appears Apple has redefined success. Anyone else sells that amount, it is an unqualified success. If it's Apple it's meh.

    8. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by Quila · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, iOS is not OS X derived as Android is Linux derived.

      That's not quite right. iOS and OS X are both built on top of the same base OS, Darwin. iOS then took relevant core libraries from OS X. Then each each has libraries dedicated to its purpose (OS X doesn't need touch or phone, iOS doesn't need windowing or Time Machine support). As far as mobile is concerned, iOS is more than OS X.

      Apple TV is tiny, irrelevant, close to nothing compared to TVs and various set top boxes running Linux (TiVo and more).

      Apple TV is a single-core A5 chip, vs basically a weaker version of a Raspberry Pi in a Roku HD. Roku is running the base Linux kernel plus a small collection of libraries and software. Apple TV is running iOS with one included app, the Apple TV software. Not quite nothing in comparison.

      Then you've got pretty much every single popular wireless router except Apple's running Linux

      Apple uses NetBSD, probably the best OS for embedded network applications.

    9. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by Karlt1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well unfortunately, you don't get to decide what is and is not Unix. The Open Group does and they have certified OS X as genuine Unix.

    10. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. by terjeber · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The total number of iOS-based devices is greater than the total number of Android-based devices.

      Not true at all. Android phones alone have more than five times the market share of iOS phones, the iPad doesn't sell five times the iPhone, and neither does the iPod touch which is the only iPod running iOS. The total number of iPod Touches sold by EOY 2011 was 60 million, which is a relatively small number considering 136 million Android phones shipped in 3Q12 alone.

      So, your notion that there are more shipped iOS devices than Android devices is not even close to true, even if you just count Android phones. Put that into your head and let it spin for a while. There are more Android phones sold than the total number of iOS devices.

      Here is another important number for you. Apple's market share is falling. It dropped by 2.1 percentage points from 3Q11 to 3Q12, and all preliminary numbers from iPhone 5 sales says it is a disappointment as related to market share. If you have a 15% market share and it is dropping 2 percentage points year over year, you're in trouble.

  2. Re:who cares by rainwater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously the courts care since they are the ones that mandated Apple provide this info on their site.

  3. Shameful behaviour by manicb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you've been slapped down for contempt of court, your next action really shouldn't be this kind of open contempt. I wonder how Apple's UK employees feel about this disrespect to their courts?

    1. Re:Shameful behaviour by mschaffer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really think Apple's UK employees really give a damn?

    2. Re:Shameful behaviour by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's right. They should goosestep to the demands of the state. All hail Britannia! I love you sheeple.

      If you think you're above the requirements the government lays on you, you could be in for a rude awakening.

    3. Re:Shameful behaviour by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could go much farther than that. I don't know how large a fine the court is allowed to impose for contempt, but I imagine it's pretty large.

      And if the court it more interested in the apology being viewed, they could required Apple to post ads on buses and trains, buy advertising time on television and post the apology in large letters across every website and on the marquis of all their UK Apple stores. They could specify the exact wording, location and size of the ads. They could make them put it in an obtrusive place on every page and piece of paperwork their customers see -- for as long as they want.

      The point here is: don't mess with the judge!

      True in the UK. True everywhere.

    4. Re:Shameful behaviour by manicb · · Score: 4, Funny

      "We have suggested that Samsung were infringing on our IP. DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS"

    5. Re:Shameful behaviour by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the thesis in question is "i won't be punished", then argument by punishment is not fallacious at all.

    6. Re:Shameful behaviour by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's just good design.

      Judges don't like "good design". They don't like clever marketing tricks (like the first "apology"). They like absolute, immediate compliance (and not "technical" compliance) with the spirit of their demands.

      Apple needs to suck it up and obey the court's order, or for the next round, you can expect executives to give their apologies on live TV from the inside of a cage.


      If you have clicked on this Slashdot article and are now reading this comment, it is almost certainly below the fold. Yet you read it, right? It's not invisible?

      Do you remember the SlashQuote at the bottom of your page when you wrote that comment? Did you even scroll down far enough to ever see it in the first place?

    7. Re:Shameful behaviour by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They just might care if the judge shuts down Apple UK for an indefinite amount of time. Contempt punishments are entirely up to the judge issuing the punishment.

      I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple thinks they're gaining when they continue to draw attention to the ruling that Samsung didn't infringe.

    8. Re:Shameful behaviour by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      How is this contempt? The message isn't hidden, it's right there on the page. The fact that they optimise the page so that their product shot makes the most of the above-the-fold real estate is not removing it from the page in any way, it's just good design.

      Oh, bullshit. Try this: go to Apple's US page (which is "apple.com" which I'm guessing will redirect in other countries, and apparently you can't just add /us/ to force it to stay in the US, so, you may have to pick a random country if you're actually in the UK) and compare it to the UK version of the page. Notice anything different?

      You might not, if the browser isn't large enough, but I'm typing this on a 1920x1200 display with the browser sized to the maximum height. With that, on the US page, the entire page is visible, including the header. On the UK page, the content is sized off the bottom.

      If you throw the page into Responsive Design View in Firefox (Ctrl-Shift-M) and start playing with the size, you'll notice that they explicitly designed the page to size the apology off the bottom. (Well, almost: they give up if you manage to get your browser view to be greater than 1600 pixels tall.)

      That's not "using above the fold real estate," not when it's optimized to not display on anything less than 1600 pixels tall. That's called "being as asshole" at the least and, I expect, will turn into being called "found in contempt of court."

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    9. Re:Shameful behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not a side effect, it is deliberate. If you view source you'll see that the code is different on the UK site vs the others.

      The UK site has:

      <script src="http://images.apple.com/v/home/n/scripts/hero_resize.js" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>

      which is a little script which resizes the elements on the screen specifically to hide the notice:

      var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b);
      AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this);
      if(typeof window.ontouchstart==="undefined"){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,"resize",this.__boundResizeHero)
      }},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310);
      this.hero().style.height=this.height()+"px"}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize("billboard")
      });

      The US site doesn't use that script, in it's place is a script called promomanager.js.

    10. Re:Shameful behaviour by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. Apple are pushing the fourth generation iPad on their USA site and the iPad mini on all their other sites. That's the determining factor for whether the resize code is used.

      Wrong. They're showing both the 4th gen iPad and the iPad mini on the US page. I know, because I just accidentally double-opened the page while double-checking and got one of each.

      But wait, it gets better. When I wrote my original post, it was based off seeing the iPad Mini ad. It looks like this. Note that there's plenty of room at the footer to place an apology.

      The iPad version actually takes up more vertical space than the iPad mini version! It looks like this. This one kind of cuts off the footer.

      So, yes, they're being flat-out asses here. The fact that the same iPad mini resize code runs on every international site is probably more a factor that Apple runs two versions of the site: for the US, and for "everyone else."

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    11. Re:Shameful behaviour by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whilst that worked in Germany for Microsoft I do not believe that would work in the UK either. If Apple got such a ruling in place, I suspect the UK courts would really throw the book at Apple at that point regardless of what some Texas judge says. If that involved a fine, and the US courts told Apple they didn't have to pay it, that could well mean the bailiffs moving in on Apple's UK stores and seizing both the properties and the products to pay the fine.

      Judges in texas can rule whatever the fuck they want but ultimately when Apple operates in a country it is bound by that countries laws and US judges do not have universal jurisdiction. It's really up to Apple then whether it wants to rely on the US judge's ruling or comply with UK law, if it doesn't it will get punished in the UK regardless.

    12. Re:Shameful behaviour by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly I notice that I no longer get redirected to the UK site when I go to Apple.com too so it suggests they've disabled that, at least for UK visitors so that people see the US site where the apology is not posted.

      Say I then click store, because I also have to scroll down to notice I'm set to the wrong country on a 1920x1200 monitor and hence proceed anyway, get to the store, and then realise I'm on the US site because all the prices are in dollars not pounds, and then change country it changes it to the page I'm on completely bypassing the front page where the notice is.

      They've gone out their way to try and avoid people seeing this. I do hope the judges are made very aware and that they are properly punished as a result.

  4. Apple managers didn't think clearly. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple managers are apparently unaware that sneaky behavior is likely to get a big story on Slashdot.

  5. How long until they just reach for a big hammer? by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder exactly how much patience the judges have for this kind of nonsense.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  6. Re:speelling mistake by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Informative

    In English judgment is spelt without the extra e when it refers to a legal judgment given by a judge. I don't know why, it just is. Usually the two spellings can be used interchangeably, but if it is an English legal thing, it never has the extra e.

  7. Re:who cares by thaylin · · Score: 4, Informative

    And before this you did not need to scroll. They are trying to manipulate the situation in a way the judges already warned them about.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  8. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry to burst your bubble there, but Samsung is by far the largest smartphone maker in the world and their profits seem to be quite close to Apple's. So no, they're not that far behind.

  9. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kiteo, his eyes closed: AOL buying Time Warner.

  10. Re:This stunt by Apple by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The space is occupied by an ad for the iPad mini, with a resolution of 1024x768. Yeah, you're full of shit. You only have a retina resolution on an iPad if it's less than 8 months old, or else it would be 1024x768 as well, so don't go talking about 1920x1080 being obsolete since the year 2000 as if you're making any damned sense.

    Apple.com doesn't scale the ipad mini ad like this, it just has a static size. Apple.com/uk does. That much seems suspicious as hell. Now, that said, Apple.com/ca for Canada also does, despite not having legalese.

    Viewed from my 1920x1200 monitor, landscape orientation. I first got something with this resolution in 2006 IIRC, maybe 2007. Clearly I'm a damned luddite.

  11. Re:This stunt by Apple by thaylin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually last week I was able to see the footer on both websites without scrolling.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  12. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    hah.

    Sokath, his eyes uncovered.

  13. Re:Must be fixed? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nope, definitely not fixed. There appear to be two options for the text appearing in the initial page view:
    1. You are running NoScript, or similar, which prevents the dynamic sizing script from working and have sufficient vertical resolution for the default image scaling to include the text below the four images below the iPad Mini
    2. You have a display in portrait mode, which seems to break the script, so I guess Apple needed those 14 days after all.

    If you are in landscape mode, and enable scripting for "apple.com", then the bottom of the webpage will be just below the four images, every time.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  14. Even on a 30" monitor I have to scroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    On my 2560x1600 monitor with the browser maximized i have to scroll to see the text. Yup, I would say it is definitely fishy.

  15. Re:who cares by makomk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only that, it appears that they've turned off the normal redirect from apple.com to the UK website and aren't displaying it on the main apple.com website for UK visitors, so it's not actually visible even with scrolling to most of the people it's meant to reach. They're literally begging to be found in contempt.

  16. Re:How long until they just reach for a big hammer by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably very little, given how quickly they reacted to Apple ignoring the spirit of the law last week. Frankly, I'm stunned that Apple seriously expected that any kind of special treatment of the message posting wasn't doing to get picked up given the level of tech press interest in the UK - the story has even been on the front page of the BBC news site. I'm guessing we'll have wait a few days to find out whether they are going to get another chance to do the right thing by the spirit of the law, or we're just going to go straight to contempt of court and see some more serious punitive action - like having to put the message in place of that nice picture of the iPad Mini.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  17. Re:This is just stupid by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Funny

    A slight flick of the finger and I scrolled to see the warning.

    Prosser: But the statement was on display.
    Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
    Prosser: That's the display department.

  18. Side-by-side screenshots by arielCo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    apple.com/uk vs apple.com on a 1600-px high screen. I had to hit F11 *after* loading apple.com/uk to include the notice in the screen capture.

    Pretty sleazy.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  19. Re:This stunt by Apple by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're going to make a claim like that, you might want to spare thirty seconds to check out the actual web sites.

    US Site: No picture scaling
    UK Site: Picture scales to hide the bottom of the page. I had to turn my monitor on its side, making it 1920 pixels tall, in order to get the notice to appear.

    I really don't understand how some people think they can get away with such obvious lies on the internet. Do they really think that not a single person will bother to check?

  20. Re:This stunt by Apple by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, even on my 145inch 8K monitor I have to scroll down... Oh wait, let me turn the magnification down a bit... Ah yes, there we go... Damn! Now where did I put my reading glasses?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  21. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... you do understand that "Market Value" has nothing to do with "largest company", right?

    Apple isn't even top 20 in terms of actual value

    Apple's profits: $33 Billion Rank: #2
    Apple's assets: $138 Billion Rank: #187.
    Apple's sales: $127 Billion Rank: #26

    Their stock is over-priced and it will return to earth eventually. They probably cannot maintain their profit margin over the next 3-5 years and as soon as the sharks see them miss a few growth estimates, it will be bye bye Apple market value.

  22. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if a creative judge wouldn't have an original redress, like:

    On apple.com, and all your international sites, in the languages you already display, you must display the apology in a click-thru manner, such as NO customer to any apple property is unaware that

    Dear customers, we've been found before British court to have falsely accused samsung of theft. Moreover we've been found also by the british court, in contempt of court for not informing our british customers of such.

    Please click here to continue to your normal apple site.

    They obviously value publicity far more than money, and should be hit appropriately.

  23. Re:Facts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, if 48 hours was an unreasonable amount of time to make this change, perhaps Apple should have complied with the original order which gave them 14 days. Instead of, you know, being giant cocks about it.

  24. Re:Have to scroll to see it 1680x1050 by narcc · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case you missed this:

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6237043/applesucks.png

    What now?

  25. Re:Facts... by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you have to adjust the code and actually test it, which can't be done in a few days

    Huh what? It takes more than a few days to test a change like adding some text to the bottom of a web page? Granted that there are multiple browsers and configurations to test, but even manually that's not more than a few hours' work... and if Apple's web site is managed by competent engineers they should have automated tests for that anyway. This sort of change should take minutes, not days, much less weeks.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  26. The next apology by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will be down in the basement, in the dark, with no stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

  27. Code in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b);
    AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this);
    if(typeof window.ontouchstart==="undefined"){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,"resize",this.__boundResizeHero)
    }},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310);
    this.hero().style.height=this.height()+"px"}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize("billboard")
    });

    That hides the bottom 310px of the page no matter what screen resolution is used.

    Page with javascript
    Page without javascript

  28. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by vakuona · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple has no debt. Did you factor that in?

    The $33bn number is "old news". Apple made $41bn in their just ended fiscal year. They are still seeing growth in 3 of their 4 main product lines (iPods are understandably seeing negative growth). Their product mix is still high value and high margin. I frankly do not see them taking an axe to their margins for market share. The bottom line is they sell in the high end of the market, where people spend money (App Store revenues are still ahead of Google Market/Google Play revenues), even with a much diminished market share/install base.

  29. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by Stewie241 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    THIS, this right here, is why I can't understand why MSFT is blowing billions jumping into the shark tank that is ARM powered mobile devices. Frankly Apple is the ONLY one making reliable money, the rest are caught in a race to the bottom, HTC has had some bad quarters, so has Samsung, the rest are looking ready to lose their shirts. the chips are changing too fast, they have too much stock, and frankly nobody looks at anything but the price...except for Apple.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, even in a downturn Apple will make out like bandits because they are NOT a tech company that makes fashionable devices, they are a fashion company that happens to work in tech. This is actually a GOOD thing for Apple fans, just look at lines around the block and people paying crazy markup for Air Jordans. Fashion seems immune when it comes to downturns for the most part, and even when article after article bitches about their memory prices...they keep right on buying.

    So any company trying to jump into that blood soaked shark tank is frankly more than a little insane, and anybody that thinks they'll make iMoney with Android or WinRT are frankly delusional. Mark my words you'll see dual core 7 inch tablets for $50, the prices will drop so low it'll practically be throwaway devices. The only one that will be making consistent profits will be Apple, and this is coming from someone who doesn't even own an iPod.

    It isn't necessarily about making money, IMO. It is about creating an ecosystem that allows their existing product to continue to thrive. As more and more people embrace mobile, and as the tablet and the laptop continue to converge, it seems apparent that Microsoft can't just keep on delivering new releases of Windows and Office. Eventually, as Google Apps continue to improve and make headway, as Google releases the Chromebook and such alternatives take root, there is going to be fewer and fewer things that are keeping people in the Microsoft world.

    Even if Microsoft's mobile venture doesn't win them huge sums of money, inroads in market share means that the Windows experience is out there as a viable alternative moving forward. Delivering an ecosystem where Windows applications can run on both the desktop and the mobile device means that development for the Windows platform can continue. If enterprises are forced to support Android and/or iOS anyway then there is no reason to build anything that takes advantage of Microsoft unique features. If Microsoft can put forth a unified ecosystem where enterprises can be convinced to target the Windows platform, that is a huge win for the long term viability of Microsoft.

  30. Re:Facts... by poly_pusher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Holy crap there's more, it also clips off the top of the page if it is too short vertically, but maintains the bottom of the page being just above the statement. They are sacrificing viewing their page navigation to ensure the bottom of the page isn't viewed...

  31. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by WGFCrafty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UK and Samsung at Tanagra. Their arms closed.

  32. Re:who cares by donaldm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In typesetting if you don't really want most people from reading a specific paragraph it is always best to put that paragraph at the bottom of the page and if possible put it in a sans-serif font while having all other fonts seriffed. Of course it also helps if you put said paragraph in a page with heavy coloured pictures which basically insures it won't be read by all but the most persistent reader. It must be noted in the UK Apple website all fonts are not seriffed however nearly all words are mainly for captions which is a very valid way of using sans-serif fonts (magazines do this all the time).

    Don't believe me then go to here and scroll to the bottom, then try to read the paragraph without your eyes wanting to take a holiday.

    Congratulations to Apple web designers for using a technique that typesetters knew over a hundred years ago and yes unless the judge is ignorant or does not care about typesetting (in this case web layout) tricks like this then I can see Apple being found in contempt.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  33. Re:"Below The Fold" by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ordering the apology be put on their web page was done so that customers would see the apology, it is therefore apparent that the court wanted the apology to be plainly visible. Public apologies are ordered by the courts all the time and screwing around with them even while remaining within the strict letter of the order is blatant contempt of court and is generally treated severely by the courts. Add to that, apple seem to have removed the redirect from the US site to the UK one it becomes more obvious that apples intention here is to go against the spirit of the order by ensuring as few people see it as possible. Apple are playing chicken with the courts, somehow I don't think the courts will swerve first.

  34. Re:OK, stick a fork in them, they're done. NOT! by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple's more recent success was in creating and filling a market that hadn't previously been properly established and expanded. Full credit to it for its imagination and high standards with regards to usability. Its success has also been to exploit the lackluster performance of Microsoft, which seemed to have become complacent in its market dominance. However Apple plays dirty, and it is worse than Microsoft in its lock-down and lock-in attitude to its systems. That is its weakness, and Google has had some success with Android because of this. Microsoft is the dark horse this time I think because if it can produce a software development platform that straddles the x86 architecture and also ARM, it can kick Apple's arse. Sadly, Linux once again is left a bit in the cold, except in its Android incarnation. I wish the hardware on smartphones and tablets was more open.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  35. Re:Contempt by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't understand. This isnt about Samsung vs Apple. This is about Apple vs the UK.

    A judge is god of his courtroom. Just as the saying goes don't fight the police, fight in court. Well the followup to that is don't taunt a judge in his domain.

    Feel free to request a review of a judicial order, but you better be starting to comply immediately if you aren't granted a temporary stay on the order pending review.

    A judge has the authority to toss your ass in jail if he thinks you show contempt for the court. Unless you are in the US and trying to perform civil disobedience in order to have standing to constitutionally challenge a law, its always bad to piss of a judge.

    The judge can also find you in contempt even if you follow the exact letter of the law. That's why they are called judges. We give them the authority to use judgement in applying most laws. They can ruin your day.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  36. Re:who cares by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So tell me, which jobs would be shed?

    Which people are Apple employing unnecessarily, that they could currently shed to gain 10% additional profits, and have decided against shedding, but would shed to regain 10% of their profits?

    If those jobs were surplus to the efficient and effective operations of the business, a corporation would already have shed them.

    Sorry, I don't trust you at all.

  37. Re:Judicial Ventriloquism by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For Apple to post a statement that purports to be from Apple stating that Samsung did not copy would be ridiculous, because it's already won judgments in other jurisdictions that say Samsung did copy.

    Apple spread the suggestion that Samsung had infringed on their IP. A court found that Samsung did not infringe. The court has ruled that Apple make it clear that Samsung did not infringe, to correct the damage caused by their initial list.

    You may call that juvenile. I consider it to be a reasonable request. Other jurisdictions are utterly irrelevant and the ruling didn't even demand that Apple state that Samsung didn't copy, merely draw attention to the lack of infringement and link to the case.

    Let the people know their judges are looking to deceive them.

    Please. Tell me how the judges are trying to deceive people. Quote the specific sentence or sentences in the transcript from the court. Because I've read it and the only attempts at deception that I can see come from Apple.