Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Legal Fight With Samsung Revealed a Gold Mine of Top-Secret Information (bgr.com)

An anonymous reader writes with this story about how the Apple vs. Samsung battle brought to light the inner workings of Apple product development. BGR reports: "Following a contentious patent battle that raged on for nearly five years, Samsung last week finally agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages for infringing upon a number of iPhone and iPad patents. While Samsung may still be holding out hope that it may someday recover those millions, it seems that we can finally start closing the book on the most widely publicized patent dispute in recent memory, one which saw Apple and Samsung battle it out in courtrooms across all corners of the globe.

One of the more interesting aspects of Apple's legal battle with Samsung is that it gave us an unprecedented look behind the veil of secrecy that typically shrouds all aspects of Apple's product development and day-to-day operations. Over the course of discovery, innumerable court filings, and a fascinating trial, the inner workings of Apple were brought to the forefront for the fist time in history. From photographs of iPhone prototypes to how Apple conducts market research, Apple's legal battles with Samsung provided tech enthusiasts with a treasure trove of previously top-secret information.

With Samsung now agreeing to pony up for damages, we thought it'd be a good time to take a step back, reminisce, and take a look at some of the more interesting nuggets of information the hard-fought patent dispute brought to light."

109 comments

  1. This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You seriously think there is a secret in the success of the always-deficient-apple-hardware? All their devices are worse performing than their competitors. This is not secret nazi technology.

    That was just stupid.

    1. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control of the iPhone team was given to Scott Forstall, with Steve Jobs giving Forstall free rein to hire anyone from any division within the company to the team.

      Jobs also told Forstall he couldn’t hire anyone from outside the company.

      When pitching the project to prospective team members, Forstall couldn’t even tell them what they’d be working on. Rather, Forstall cryptically told them that if they opted to join, they would have to “work hard, give up nights, work weekends for years.” Not mincing words, Forstall also told prospective team members: “If you choose to accept this role, you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life.”

      Initial development on the iPhone was referred to as “Project Purple” and took place in a separate building that Forstall likened to a dorm. “”People were there all the time. It smelled like pizza,” Forstall said.

      Security was air-tight. The building where iPhone development was taking place was replete with video cameras and card readers. While testifying, Forstall said that some workers on the team “would have to show their badges five of six times” before being able to access key development areas.

      The original iPhone team put up a “Fight Club” poster on the wall because, well, the first rule of Project Purple is that you don’t talk about Project Purple.
      Forstall said that the amount of work that went into creating the original iOS interface was monumental, and that he himself “devoted years of my life to this.”

      The double-tap to zoom feature was dreamt up after Forstall grew weary of constantly enacting pinch-to-zoom when reading text on a webpage.

      Though likely larger now, the size of Apple’s iPhone team in 2012 was 2,000 strong.

    2. Re:This is getting stupid by davester666 · · Score: 2

      assumes a basic fact with no evidence. there is no evidence Samsung worked on ANYTHING like either iOS or the original iPhone prior to the iPhone being announced.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:This is getting stupid by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      how the hell did Samsung get info on it years before the release

      You mean Apple's hardware partner? No idea...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:This is getting stupid by ITRambo · · Score: 2

      I'd mod you up if I had points today. Your comment is right on point. Bids for manufacturing require knowledge of what is to be made.

    5. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in case your ignorant.

      In case his ignorant what? Why do you leave us hanging?

    6. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Without the iPhone, your current Samsung phone would be a fat brick with mushy buttons and a tiny screen.

      They wouldn't have seen LG's Prada phone for example?

      Samsung "designed" their phones by mimicking every last thing the iPhone did.

      Everybody copies ideas from everybody in this industry. Whether it's Apple taking their design cues from Braun or copying Android's notification center and control center or copying Windows Phone's multitasking UI. Or whether it is Samsung copying some of Apple's design elements (the Galaxy looked *very* similar to an iPhone from the front but nothing like it from the sides or the back for example) everybody picks up ideas from everybody else.

      That's called stealing IP

      Then all of those companies, including Apple, are guilty of "stealing IP".

    7. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's odd... actual benchmarks seem to disagree with you - iPhones are significantly faster than anything else out there:

      http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/09/iph...
      http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/09/iph...
      http://blogs-images.forbes.com...
      http://images.anandtech.com/gr...
      http://images.anandtech.com/gr...

    8. Re:This is getting stupid by DanJ_UK · · Score: 2

      Samsung is Korean, not 'chink'.

      --
      - Dan
    9. Re:This is getting stupid by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      rofl

      --
      - Dan
    10. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that the external partner knew more about the product before the people working at Apple did????

      Were Samsung employees that deep in Apple's project they knew more than employees of Apple????

      If they were that deep, isn't it possible, even likely, that those Samsung employees helped provide some of the "ideas", such as "don't make the corners square to make it different from any other product that you can put in your pocket, make them rounded corners so they won't catch so easy!"? And wouldn't, at that time, the idea of patenting "round corners" have been too damn obvious to be thought by the actual workers to be patentable or even written down as who made the suggestion???

      And if Samsung were told, is there a signed NDA showing that Samsung were in breech of using what they were told by Apple? Because if not, Apple telling them about their design is rather ruinous to the protection of patents to Samsung: they are free to use what they are told before patents were applied for.

      The partners of Apple included people who manufactured the screen. Which Apple did not invent. Did their team know the design of the case, or the swipe method of hinting to the OS what you want?

      "Samsung were their partner" STILL DOES NOT answer the question. How did Samsung know the "patented" shit Apple were doing better than workers insode Apple, given the huge secrecy. It's just waving your hands.

    11. Re: This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous call ward: do you have a job? Make $? You're always on here ranting about stupid stuff, I guess you pee in a bottle

    12. Re:This is getting stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And americans would know the difference how?

  2. This is not at all interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I want the physiological details of how the Jesus Phone incarnated parthenogenetically and triumphed over mortality.

    The rest is just CEO trashtalk which amounts to nothing.

  3. I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >> how Apple conducts market research

    I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. http://appleinsider.com/articl...

    1. Re:I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they do plenty of market research.

      They don't conduct "Market Research(tm)" in the normal fashion where you higher an external organization that in turns farms out an itterative chain of lowest bid "research" to produce a garbage report that is sold to your C-level execs during a round of golf.

      If you haven't noticed, Apple does a LOT of things their own way while keeping it close to their chest.

      You (and the people that run "Market Research(tm)" companies) can complain about that, but ultimately your arguments will feel a little flat when you look at Apple's sales reports.

    2. Re:I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, if you believe any corporation that large doesn't do market research or pay for market research done by other parties, I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.

    3. Re:I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by Karlt1 · · Score: 0

      Words Mean Things:

      "In his brief time on the stand at Tuesday's Apple v. Samsung court proceedings, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller said the company doesn't rely on "typical" market studies to create its products.

      "That plays no role in the creation of the products."

      If they had done market research before they created the first iPhone, people would have said that they wanted a phone with a keyboard. No one would have said that they wanted a computer without a floppy drive and let's get rid of the optical drive in laptops to make them smaller and add some PS/2 ports while you're at it.

    4. Re:I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Simple: Jobs lied.

    5. Re:I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> how Apple conducts market research

      I thought Apple didn't conduct market research. http://appleinsider.com/articl...

      Also, I have a fifteen inch penis.

  4. Re:Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    > AppleDontCare

    That's the truth. I bought a new MacBook with AppleCare last night, and it wouldn't boot out of the box. They wanted to give me a refurbished one as a replacement. I bought a new laptop so I don't want a used one. I left the laptop with them and ordered another from MacMall (no sales tax!). They said they would only refund a part (90%) of what they charged me for the laptop since it was opened. Looks like I need to do a chargeback.

  5. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would fix my MacBook with ApplCare since it was over 36 months since it had been manufactured. I bought it 29 months ago.

  6. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of my Intel Apples crash more than ten times as often as the PowerPC ones did.

  7. 8-sided model is interesting by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those octagon-like corners might be a good way to get around Apple's patent on rounded corners. Could've saved Samsung half a billion dollars.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except it had nothing to do with rounded corners.

    2. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To quote myself from a few weeks ago when someone else misunderstood how design patents differ from utility patents...

      For some reason, many Slashdotters seem to be completely unaware (or perhaps willfully ignorant) of the distinction between utility patents (i.e. what we think of when we say "patents") and design patents, which are something else entirely. As a result, when they hear that "Apple got a patent on rounded corners", they rightfully think that's utterly ridiculous and an example of a broken patent system, when it's actually nothing of the sort, since design patents more closely resemble a time-limited trademark than they do a utility patent.

      The reality of the situation is that Apple is one of likely thousands of entities with design patents that include a claim for rounded corners. That's because those design patents aren't just making a claim for rounded corners. They're for rounded corners + a long list of additional claims that makes each of those products uniquely identifiable as the product they are. In the case of the iPhone 5 series, the design patent was for something along the lines of rounded corners + chamfered edges + aluminum trim + flat glass front + aluminum back + no adornment on the front + some other stuff I'm forgetting. I've seen a similar design patent filed by Samsung that covers some of their phones, and, as you'd expect, rounded corners were included in their list of claims as well. Again, each claim is considered alongside the other claims, rather than independently of the other claims, and for a competitor to be infringing, they need to be infringing against not just one of the claims, but against many or all of them. After all, rounded corners do not an iPhone make.

      All of which is to say, yes, changing something simple like that may very well have prevented Samsung from being out a half billion dollars. Or they could have ditched any one of the other number of features they had that were listed as claims in the relevant design patents that Apple was issued. Do a tapered back/sides instead of having a flat back and flat sides. Do a rounded edge around the screen instead of a chamfered one. Curve the glass instead of having it flat. Make the corners elliptical instead of circular. There are any number of ways to circumvent design patents. It's not particularly challenging.

    3. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Other than rounded corners, what exactly is there in the design patent that Apple asserted?

    4. Re: 8-sided model is interesting by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Battlestar Galactica much?

    5. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ie, do what all the other phone manufacturers did.

      Not slavishly copy the product, the packaging, the icons, etc etc etc.

      To get an idea about Samsung design, look at their TVs. We have one where we removed the base so we could hang it on the wall.
      What you saw was a small portion of the stand still attached that hung below the bottom of the screen. It looked bloody stupid, Apple would never have shipped something that poorly designed (neither did a number of other TV manufacturers either).

      Samsung has a LONG history of copying other people, and I dont mean just copying a genre or broadly copied, I mean extremely closely copied.

      Its like if it were a painting, and someone "copied" the idea of cubism , they copied the idea, not the work.
      Samsun would have copied the work but maybe used a lightly different frame to hand it in.

    6. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it. The patents that Apple is so proud of have basically no technical utility. Also at some point if you simplify a design enough it becomes very generic and likely that another very similar design will emerge. The list you give is almost certain to be in any lineup of "clean metallic" designs for touchscreen devices, no matter who made it up. The thing you conveniently overlook is that the Apple and Samsung devices under discussion were DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS and had different buttons and so would be hard to mistake for each other. So apple gets damages from Samsung because Apple neglected to give their aspect ratio in the patent and Samsung came out with a similar "clean metallic" design. I think Samsung thought the differences that were present were sufficient to distinguish the product, but Apple's patent was interpreted in an overly broad way. In joke form the overly broad aspect turns into apple patenting rounded corners.

    7. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two points:

      1) I know what design patents are. That one is still ridiculous. The device has too simple a design for that to be meaningful and rounded corners are actually functional, not mere design (they avoid things breaking when they hit the corner).

      2) The phones were different in a lot of ways, the problem is that they were hunting for commonalities, of which there simply weren't many.

      3) A design patent on something with that few elements is itself abusive. I do not agree with the practice of handing out design patents whatsoever, either.

    8. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      The thing you conveniently overlook is that the Apple and Samsung devices under discussion were DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS and had different buttons and so would be hard to mistake for each other. .

      Yep, because you say so.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:8-sided model is interesting by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Other than rounded corners, what exactly is there in the design patent that Apple asserted?

      Well, it was a rounded screen, with a grid of icons. Below that grid was a static set of icons. The upper grid of icons could be swiped to move from "page" to "page" while the lower static set stayed the same.

      That was the gist of it. And no stock Android OS had that - the "static grid of icons" only applied to the home screen, but that was fixed by having stuff like clocks and widgets there, so it wasn't a grid of icons.

      For a long time, when you went to the app launcher on Android, it was a scrolling grid of icons, which also meant it didn't violate the patent. Either way, the app launcher does not have a static grid of icons, so at no point on a stock Android build was the patent violated.

      Ironically, if you wrote an app that behaved like an iPhone, you would be safe as well, because your app does not have "rounded corner screen".

      The issue was that TouchWiz itself in the early days was a grid of icons with a static grid underneath it, and it was basically working just like the iPhone, even the dots representing pages were similar (Samsung attempted to change it by putting a page number inside the dot).

    10. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Well, it was a rounded screen, with a grid of icons. Below that grid was a static set of icons. The upper grid of icons could be swiped to move from "page" to "page" while the lower static set stayed the same.

      I don't remember there being any grid of icons shown in the design patent. I'm pretty sure there was nothing shown on what would be the screen.

    11. Re: 8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. There were over twenty individual complaints about Samsung's infringement. And, no, rounded corners are not functional. Were that they were they'd be ineligible for a design patent.

      2. You just said that there were too few details to begin with, which shoots your 'they not really that similar to begin with!'. Welp, that's immaterial because you're wrong. The complaint was that they were too similar and listed a multitude of ways that they were. Simple as that.

      3. It has already been established that your count was way off. It's worth mentioning that this is how you avoid accidently purchasing a Sony product. Yes, you do actually prefer this. Samsung needed only to keep their eyes on their own paper, everyone else has managed to.

    12. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Got it. The patents that Apple is so proud of have basically no technical utility.

      Design patents are explicitly prohibited from having any utility, since that's what utility patents are for. A design patent that is found to have utility is invalid. Both Samsung and Apple have separate utility patents to cover the utility of their devices, but those weren't at issue in these suits, from what I understood, since this was a case about one company suing another company for making lookalike devices.

      As for Apple's attitudes towards their patents and whether or not they feel pride towards them, I have no knowledge of that subject, but feel free to keep conjecturing without me.

    13. Re:8-sided model is interesting by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I followed your link and, even if they weren't labeled, I'd have been able to tell them apart. This is a person who doesn't even *use* tablets as a general rule (though I own a number, that was just because I've tried to like the form factor) and doesn't actually use iDevices very often at all. Why you'd expect lawyers to know is a bit odd. They might have a degree but they're not always that bright. Either way, the two are vaguely similar but I'm not sure if I'd have found them similar enough to warrant finding Samsung at fault.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If your case is about defending your product's uniqueness against a second competitor, you better be familiar with those products and darn well be able to identify them, especially if you're the lawyer. The fact that they could not speaks volumes about how the average person, who you would expect to be less familiar with those products than the lawyers paid to defend them, would be able to tell them apart, especially if they're not seen side by side.

      I use both sets of products (Samsung and Apple) and I can tell you even knowing the collection of products I have on my desk, I have to take a second look at several of the devices to be sure I have the right brand, much less the right specific device. My personal belief is this: given how varied the market was prior to the iPhone, IMHO Apple has a strong case given how homogenous and iPhone like all smart phones are now. IOW, when the iPhone came out - it was unique. Now it is one among many with the same basic visual appeal. Granted, the Android eco system sucks rocks user friendliness wise, but the basic presentation is very close to iOS to the casual observer. Note that this is not to say iOS and its eco system is awesome, it has its own set of flaws, some of them darn exasperating. But from a casual user's standpoint, my personal feelings again are that iOS and apps are far superior in polish to Android and apps.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:8-sided model is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Design patents cannot be functional, and round corners is functional. It stops snags and rips.

  8. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Intel ones crash pretty often. It sucks that they decided to shove such crappy CPUs down our throats.

  9. Short summary of the "secret" information by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative
    For those who don't want to read all of it, here's a short list of secrets
    1. Prototypes: Some were form-factor prototypes; some were working models. Some ideas like a curved glass screen or iPad kickstand clearly did not make it into a product
    2. Early iPhone project information: Had to use existing Apple personnel only and so secret that people were not even told what they were doing when recruited or that they could talk about the project: think Fight Club
    3. Long product roadmap: Apple plans many products and features years in advance.
    4. Apple does market research: in fact a lot of research.
    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Long product roadmap: Apple plans many products and features years in advance.

      Only about a year in advance. That's the year it takes to see other people release a feature and then copy it.

    2. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seeing as the iPhone is a blatant copy in form factor and icon grid style Sony already had, which caused Apple to dump what they were working on. Your zealotry fanboisms fails when it comes to real life facts. Furthermore, Apple can only use product made by LG and Samsung. If the real R&D done in South Korea and Japan wasn't done, Apple would be fucked. They don't make anything, they pick existing parts from other manufacturers and put them together. That's it, that's all they do. Little more than 80s electronic enthusiasts choosing components from datasheets for their hobby product.

      Whaaa whaaaa, lickle baby upset now. Boo hoo. Life tip: Don't project a corporations personality onto your self. You don't exist to them beyond your wallet, fool.

    3. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down Cowboy, he was saying APPLE were the ones who copy.

      Save your crazy ranting for the bgr comments section.

      The best part is you flying off the handle because you thought the parent was accusing others of copying, and in the process you make sure to call out the rabid fanboyism of his one line comment with several lines of far more reactionary comment in some attempt to argue with him, or drown him out with your own fanboyism. Who knows what really drove that rant. But the best part is, you don't even disagree with him, but you sure can't read very well.

      Life tip: Be sure you know what someone is saying before you call them out for being a fanboy with even more extreme fanboyism.

    4. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The Ipad was already in full development for literally years before the first iphone debuted. IN 2003, when someone asked Steve Jobs if Apple would make another PDA like the NEWTON, he replied "To get back into the PDA business, we would have to get into the cell phone business", basically denying it. I pretty much knew that this meant Apple was going to build another Newton. The mobile ecosystem had already been in development for at least 3 years when he said that. Apple takes a VERY long view or things, at least when Steve was around.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Apple takes a VERY long view or things, at least when Steve was around.

      The recent report that Apple would be "using OLEDs In iPhone Models From 2018" would indicate they still do.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      From what I know of the iPad, the first prototypes were Intel Atom based and got terrible battery life. But Apple realized they could shrink it further and make it a cell phone so they put all their development on that first. Also I think this was the start of Apple's anti-Flash stance. Working with the smaller form factors make Flash unbearable when it was merely a nuisance on desktop or laptop.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Technologically speaking I am not sure why they haven't done so yet. I can only imagine there is some reason like logistics that prevent them from doing so. Or is it a technological limit like contrast ratio that OLEDs are now starting to overcome.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Technologically speaking I am not sure why they haven't done so yet. I can only imagine there is some reason like logistics that prevent them from doing so. Or is it a technological limit like contrast ratio that OLEDs are now starting to overcome.

      Even if todays OLEDs have actually finally overcome their flaws, they still don't yield enough to feed Apple's production numbers.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    9. Re:Short summary of the "secret" information by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      From what I know of the iPad, the first prototypes were Intel Atom based and got terrible battery life.

      Yeah. Sure. The first iPad prototypes are actually older than the first iPhone prototypes, Yeah, I'm sure they used a CPU that came out after the iPhone. Snark aside, from TFA I just linked to:"The ARM chip looks like a variant of the Samsung S3C2410, which Ars Associate Writer Andrew Cunningham said is “a distant relative of the chip the first iPhone ended up using, just older and slower.”

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  10. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans have the reverse Midas touch. Everything they touch turns to shit.

  11. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AppleDontCare is correct. The SSD quit in my nine month old MacBook, but they refused to replace it. At least I drove a few customers off when they overheard how Apple was screwing me.

  12. Amazing... a three-paragraph summary... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... that says absolutely nothing.

    1. Re:Amazing... a three-paragraph summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly new for DiceDot.

    2. Re:Amazing... a three-paragraph summary... by chispito · · Score: 2

      TFA isn't much better. A bunch of "crazy iphone prototypes" that just look like phones, and details on a secretive development and exhaustive design process. Yawn.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Amazing... a three-paragraph summary... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      It's not even a 3 paragraph summary, It's a 3 paragraph copy-paste of the opening of the article.

  13. Money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forstall cryptically told them that if they opted to join, they would have to “work hard, give up nights, work weekends for years.” Not mincing words, Forstall also told prospective team members: “If you choose to accept this role, you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life.”

    You see, this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be. And in Cupertino, CA with those work hours and demands, I'd be looking for $500K per year - at the minimum. See, all the free California shit pizza in the World isn't good enough compensation.

    But, there's a huge line behind me of people with no money sense or lives who jumped at that chance. That's their choice. But when you wake up one day in your late thirties, alone and with diminishing career opportunities, you ask yourself how you could be so stupid to devote so much of your life to a job. And there's this jab of pain when you see some of your classmates who pursued less demanding careers that have a loving spouse and family. And then your job is off-shored.

    1. Re:Money? by Karlt1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see, this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be

      On the other hand, if I put on my resume in 2008 that I had played a major role in the design of the iPhone, I think I could command much higher salaries than if I said I wrote yet another line of business software-as-a-service web app.

  14. Re:Top Secret? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    No, but you did miss the part where you're being way too literal; and how the phrase "top secret" has come to mean much more than just a classification by the US Government in common language like 30 years ago.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  15. It only matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you are making a smartphone, and you have to make sure that your design doesn't infringe upon their patents. It's kinda like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have a tendency to avoid making identical formulas.

    The real issue, however, lies in whether one group unintentionally made a design error BECAUSE the information to prevent them from doing so was unavailable.

  16. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already have an appointment the Saturday before Chrisrmas at the Apple Store to try to lose them as much business as I can. My laptop is only six months old, and they won't fix it.

  17. Re:Apple is truly Republican-ruled by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the CPUs that Apple uses now, feel free to go back to the mobile PowerPC G4 of 12 years ago. IBM wasn't going to make a low-power G5, because they just couldn't do it, and the POWER6 next-gen CPU family was going to be even more wattage thirsty.

    This is why Apple jumped. PowerPC was a dead end for applications that didn't involve the cooling capacity of a data center.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Whoa, that iPad prototype by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006, long before the iPad was even a rumor, and even pre-dating the iPhone. Notice how the front looks identical to the later Samsung tablets, just with bigger bezels and no button. And it contains all of the distinctive elements of the original iPad that Apple sued over except the home button - flat, rounded corners, black bezels with white/silver edges. As if Apple simply ripped off Samsung's design, then turned around and sued Samsung for ripping them off.

    The argument against that version of history has always been that the back of the picture frame looks nothing like the back of the iPad. Well, now we have this image of the back of an early iPad prototype, lending support to the theory that Apple used Samsung's picture frame as a starting point for their iPad design.

    1. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by gstoddart · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ah, but here's where patents screw up everything: Once you have your patent rubber stamped by the idiots at the patent office whose sole job is to ensure the check cleared, it's a valid patent.

      The patent system is so horribly that once the design patent was awarded, things like facts and reality became irrelevant -- because design patents are just as broken as patents on inventions; first guy to get it accepted wins.

      What people miss here is that this is a situation created ENTIRELY by the way the patent system works, and how it's not designed to weigh to merit of anything, just the paperwork and collecting the fees.

      Patents are now just tools for big business to keep small business out of the game, and to be used as ammunition to try to keep the other big businesses from competing.

      As they exist now, patents are preventing innovation and invention, in favor of letting asshole lawyers wring out licensing fees and stop competition.

      Who did what in what order is meaningless until someone revokes a patent.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by rsborg · · Score: 2

      For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006

      That's great - I had no idea digital picture frames were secretly tablets in disguise! Who doesn't remember digital picture frames from 2003-2004 sold at Shaper Image? Guess Sharper Image (or whoever actually manufactured the products) should sue Apple too!

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung defence force, activate! Form of, let's blindly defend our evil Korean company against a petty American one!

    4. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you think that Samsung would have thought of that if it were a compelling defense? I'm sure you are a great lawyer, but you can't be the only person to ever have had that thought. Presumably, Samsung knew that argument to be untrue or ineffective, or they used it as evidence and it still didn't make a difference.

      In either case, you sound clever but I think maybe not so much.

    5. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's a design patent, it doesn't matter the use of the product, only the look.

      Seems like picture frames being the same as phones isn't the only thing you have no clue about...

    6. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did. And it was rejected by the jury because they're Americans and Apple is American and Samsung isn't.

    7. Re:Whoa, that iPad prototype by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006, long before the iPad was even a rumor, and even pre-dating the iPhone.

      But not before what would be the iPad was sold as a Tablet Mac rumor (or rather Patent) in 2005. Note that the Samsung picture frame is not a copy of that patent, because it actually doesn't look all that much like it.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  19. Fist time in history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Let us celebrate fists!

  20. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is their excuse for not fixing it? You don't even need AppleCare; it's still under warranty.

  21. Re:Top Secret? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    Am I missing something?

    no, it's all about click-baits.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  22. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seagate did that to me. They claimed the warranty started when the drive was made instead of when I bought it. Sad to see Apple pulling the same crap.

  23. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been to five different Apple stores about the problem with my new MacBook's keyboard. They've lost customers at every single one of them when they overheard the problem. I'm sure I cost them hundreds of times over what a new keycap costs.

    My e key is coming apart and has sharp edges. It's a simple, but annoying problem.

  24. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how they'll piss off people by not honoring the warranty in front of other customers! That is so stupid.

  25. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send a letter to:

    Customer Service
    Apple, Inc.
    1 Infinite Loop
    Cupertino, CA 95014

    I've managed about forty or so Apple laptops with AppleCare at work since 2002, and every single time I've gone to they store, they have refused to fix the problem, even if it was something as simple as a keycap that was falling apart or the little scissors under the keycap. Those parts cost less than a $1, but Apple still decides to screw the customer over them. Officially, and I confirmed this with an Apple exec,they have a policy against fixing those two parts in the store. They're supposed to mail the laptop in for repair. Because the store is judged on the number of laptops they send in for repair, they certainly don't want to do that for something so cheap.

    Send them a snail mail letter. Every single time I have done that, Apple has eventually agreed to honor AppleCare.

  26. More like a crappy garage sale than gold mine by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Like most garage sales the stuff was mostly someone else's crap that you wouldn't want for yourself. Apple's reaction to Samsung's âoeThe next big thing is already hereâ ad campaign was interesting though.

  27. Trade Secrets are not Top Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Top Secret is a classification given to sensitive government information. It is not related to Trade Secrets in the least. There was no Top Secret information revealed in the court filings. If there were people would be getting indicted for mishandling classified information.

  28. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by man_the_king · · Score: 1

    Seagate did that to me. They claimed the warranty started when the drive was made instead of when I bought it. Sad to see Apple pulling the same crap.

    Wait, what?!? They can do that?

    How are we supposed to know when buying when a drive was manufactured? This sounds downright illegal.

  29. Re:Top Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you miss the part where you aren't being literal enough? Wtf is the difference between a Trade 'Secret' and a Trade 'Top Secret'?

    Top Secret is a classification given to sensitive government information. It is not related to Trade Secrets in the least. There was no Top Secret information revealed in the court filings. If there were people would be getting indicted for mishandling classified information. Just because YOU use the term too loosely doesn't change the fact that only STATE SECRETS, not TRADE SECRETS, can be classified as TOP SECRET.

  30. Re:Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple had options. P.A. Semi's PWRficient processor would have been a better way forward. Instead, they dumped PPC for a crappy 32-bit Intel chip, and then had to maintain two x86 architectures. Afterward, they bought P.A. Semi for the team, tossed their fine processor, and set them to work on Apple ARM chips. Lots of churn for what the PPC could have delivered from the very start.

  31. Re:Top Secret? by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Government data classification markers have specific syntax. Just saying 'Top Secret', also in a government setting, is at most an indication, not binding (for one, because there are more countries that speak English, for example). For classification markers to be legally binding, they must follow certain rules (where the info came from, and who has need-to-know). Also, companies these days have data classification systems. They don't have legal redress of course, but they can fire you and/or try to have you fined in a civil court. A classification system helps to define the damage done.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  32. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    With hard disks, the mfr date is listed on the box.

  33. Re:Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 2003 PowerPC 17" PowerBook lasted longer on battery than any of my Dell laptops of the same era. Also, it ran cooler than the Dells. On the iBooks, that also used a PowerPC, I can't remember ever even hearing the fan run, unlike on the Dells. They should have stuck with quality CPUs rather than moving to the bottom of the barrel Intel ones.

    I can't remember my PowerBook ever crashing a single time in the three years I had it. My new MacBook Pro crashes several times a month.

  34. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by man_the_king · · Score: 1

    With hard disks, the mfr date is listed on the box.

    What happens if you buy it online?

  35. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

    I had no issue getting AppleCare reset to my purchase date for what otherwise would have been an out of warranty repair. Perhaps you didn't keep that receipt? Receipts are important.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  36. Ride the Big One [Re:Money?] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "[Apple] told...you will work harder than you ever have in your entire life"

    this is why I don't get hired for these things. I'd ask what my increase in pay is going to be...

    If I could expect "glory", big stock, and/or resume credit, I may have considered such when younger.

    I've actually been promised similar things, BUT the owners flaked in the end or the product flopped. I roughly cloned Ebay in 4 weeks once under such pretenses. (I was cross-eyed at the end.)

    9 times out of 10 when you are asked to "sell your soul for glory", there's nothing at the end of the tunnel but bulls8t and disappointment. But, the young and restless often like such gambles even if success is unlikely.

    I recommend it at least ONCE in your life, before or after you have a family to support. When you get older you then won't kick yourself for not trying when you had the stamina or time. I'm disappointed I never made it big from such gambles, but glad I tried a couple of times.

  37. A summary that gives no more info than the title.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and it's so long. Might as well just replace the summary with a link to the original article, what a complete waste of reading time.

  38. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wasted more than $1 on gas just driving there. Just buy a bag of them and fix it yourself.

  39. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Just buy a bag of them and fix it yourself.

    How? Apple doesn't sell them and claims that all that you see on ebay are stolen. I know most of the sellers are scammers since I've bought keycaps at least four times from ebay, and I haven't received a keycap yet.

    Apple's policy is that you have to pay for an entire top cover replacement to fix a broken key. They quoted $800 for that for my late-2012 MacBook.

  40. Re: I thought Apple didn't conduct market research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I's all in the secret sauce. Apple has macic elves hidden away.

  41. Shouldn't corporate top secret info be sealed? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised Apple's lawyers allowed their secret corporate practices to be publically revealed.

  42. " reminisce" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone seriously "reminisce" about the internal processes used by a random company they have no real stake in? If the answer is yes then I'd prefer to die sooner rather than later.

  43. Re:Not enough trannies and hermies in IT by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this will help but it might. See, there's nothing to worry about. They're probably not wanting to have sex with you. Finally, the odds of finding a rapist in a group of transgendered or hermaphroditic people are probably lower than the odds one might have of winning the lottery. In other words, it shouldn't be very high on your list of concerns.

    If, by some strange turn of events, you find yourself encountering one of these folks who is acting in a sexually threatening manner then you might just as well as play the lottery.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  44. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Sadly? Caveat Emptor, probably.

    However, you may have something known as a "warranty of applied merchantability" in your state. Check your local regulations. I'll leave you to Google it but, in short, it's something that businesses either hope you know nothing about or lack the will to make use of it. However, you may well have an implied warranty in your State even if the company doesn't know this or wish to admit it.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  45. Re: Apple is truly Republican-ruled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I contacted them by email about updating warranty to purchase date. They gave me a toll free number to call and update. I believe I'll also need to email them a copy of invoice, which is reasonable. Not open on weekends, so you just reminded me to do that.

    I believe with WDC, you can update online if you sign up for an account.