Sorry, I should have been more clear...I meant that the guy should be keeping his patent scope limited to exactly what he did, as opposed to making it so broad as to cover synthetic life in general.
Sometimes the depth of human greed astonishes me. This is something which, if openly available to the right people and if they were allowed to work on/improve on it as they saw fit, could literally change almost everything.
Keeping it locked behind a patent is greed at its worst (or finest, depending on which side you are on.) I'm all for getting paid for your ideas, but some things (like, oh I don't know, synthetic life) should belong to the entire human race, not Joe McBob who can only see lawsuits and dollar signs.
Ok..... So..... Should we apologize to you, or something? It's entertainment. Many people enjoy it. You do not. Why does discussion about it offend your ears so much? And for that matter, why do you feel the need to be so antagonistic about it?
I was just presenting my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Alrighty then, you guys can't cry "monopoly" any more.
Define "You guys".
I may not personally like Apple as a company, nor do I like most of their products, but I have never once claimed they were a monopoly in any market, either online or in person.
The point is, they won't miss you for a moment. Your freedom will not equal punishing or costing Apple in any measurable way. And do go ahead, buy something else, like I do. You don't need to make them suffer to enjoy your choices. But railing against Apple (or any other successful company that diminishes you) is pointless. Get over it. They will do fine without you.
Sadly true, but it's still the only tool I have to express my opinion on the matter (other than trolling slashdot, of course)
Now, I dare you to find a substitute that has a measurably better attitude. Google? Microsoft? Any cell company? Any call phone/player/netbook maker? All are compromised by profit.
True, but with my WinMo or Android phone, I still have control over my own device...not the other way around.
I can deal with being motivated by profit, that's totally fine. I can't deal with duping people into believing they have a good user experience while simultaneously restricting them. I especially can't deal with a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank while they do it.
For some people, that restriction is what makes the experience good. I am not one of those people.
For a marginal player, they are doing an exceptional job of both capturing outsized profits and driving every other company's cell phone designs and features. They have changed the assumptions about what a smartphone is and in the process they have dramatically grown that market, as people who used to use the inaptly-named "feature phones" started buying smartphones instead. They may not be large in total cell phone market share, but "marginal" is the wrong word to describe them.
See, now THAT I completely agree with. Regardless of my personal opinion on their products, the affect they have had on the market can't be denied.
Thanks for informing us that CPU and graphics are all that go into a computer.
I never said that. What I said is that they use the same CPU and GPUs that "windows" PCs use. CPUs and GPUs (obviously) aren't all that makes up the hardware of a computer, but they are a part of the major indicators for overall performance (the other three being motherboard, hard Drive, and RAM...none of which Apple manufactures, either.)
From that point of view, Apple hardware (as in, the internal hardware, not the shell it sits in) isn't much different from its competitors. Sit someone down in front of OSX running on non-Apple hardware, piped through an Apple monitor, and they would never know the difference. That's my main point here.
Could it be that other people value things you don't? Are you really so arrogant that you think only morons can have a different opinions or values?
Right back at ya. People are free to like Apple all the want...just as I'm free to think they are idiots for doing so. They don't understand why I wouldn't want the integrated experience, and I don't understand why they want to spend more money for the same (internal) hardware.
We are both equally free to express our opinions...which is exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what you are doing. Yay, conversation!
What a sad, narrow little world you must live in.
I wish it was a little more narrow...I'm still carrying around that holiday paunch:/
You keep stating that it is the same hardware, but it isn't. Although apple uses some of the same commodity components as other manufacturers, but they engineer their products quite differently from others with an overall greater emphasis on quality. A4 chip residing in ipads is not "same hardware" that's in other tablets(laugh) and netbooks. The claim that they sell the same hardware as acer, hp, or dell is ridiculous. Apple earns higher margins on their consumer items because their products provide higher value, this is because of software and hardware integration. Other pc makers slap windows on their boxes while apple tailors their software to each device. That's what people pay extra for and thats how apple makes good margins, by offering something no one else can.
You do realize that Apple themselves produces practically none of their internal hardware...right?
But you just can't deny that business-wise, Apple is doing better than most other PC companies.
Nor would I, as that would be foolish.
It's either this or you seriously believe that every single Apple customer is a brainless moron who doesn't know he is being ripped off.
No, but many of their customers have their heads filled with misinformation (as evidenced by plopping people down in front of OSX on non-Apple hardware...and not being able to tell the difference.)
When I buy Apple, I buy an experience. I feel like I'm getting good value for money. They charge a premium for that Apple experience, which translates into higher per-unit profits.
I look at it as a win-win.
Clearly, it doesn't work for you. There are still plenty of commodity configs and components for you to choose from, so have at it.
But please, spare us "you are getting reamed" as if we don't know better. We do know better, that's why we buy Apple.
So would you be willing to use OSX if it was just on non-Apple hardware? Would a Hackintosh suit your needs? Or is that glowing logo a necessity for you?
I could say "enjoy being a bottom-feeder and boasting about it" but I'm just too super-cool for that sort of condescension (that big word means talking down to you).
I'd rather be a bottom-feeder than someone who pays twice what I do for the same hardware and calls it an "experience".
All we know is, buying some Apple shares might be a good idea, because as a business, they're doing a lot better than the competition, even without having a large market share.
::shrug:: defend it however you want. The fact is, they are selling less numbers of the same hardware, but making more money. If you can't see that means they are charging more than their competition for the same hardware, I don't know what to tell you.
And besides, if it's the software that people like so much, why not just build a Hackintosh?
Me personally, I don't want an iPhone because of my problems with Apples restrictions regarding development and your freedom to use your phone. In all honesty, an iPhone would likely provide a better experience than the phone I'm using now...but I don't care. The only way I can show Apple my dissatisfaction with their methods is by voting with my wallet, which is what I've done.
Apple tries to gain a competitive advantage by offering better products, not cheaper ones like most other companies. You can agree or disagree on whether Apple is succesful at this, but it does lead to massive profits and revenues for Apple Inc. So calling this "failure" is a bit... strange, to say the least.
It's a failure of intelligence on the part of their buyers. Think about it:
A) Apple sells less computers than other companies...enough to be number 6 by volume. B) Apple brings in (according to you) more revenue than most of those five companies in front of it. C) Apple charges a higher average price for their products that use similar internal hardware as that of their less expensive competitors.
All things considered, that tells me that they are overcharging you for their products.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a rhetorical question, clod!
...so are people really dumb enough to go "oh right, my bank's webpage" without realizing they didn't bring it up themselves?
"Not born...shit into existence."
OH NOES!
Sorry, I should have been more clear...I meant that the guy should be keeping his patent scope limited to exactly what he did, as opposed to making it so broad as to cover synthetic life in general.
My bad -_-;;
And at the same time, I may pantent you as well.
Is that when, instead of pulling someone's pants down, you just rip the pockets off? :p
Sometimes the depth of human greed astonishes me. This is something which, if openly available to the right people and if they were allowed to work on/improve on it as they saw fit, could literally change almost everything.
Keeping it locked behind a patent is greed at its worst (or finest, depending on which side you are on.) I'm all for getting paid for your ideas, but some things (like, oh I don't know, synthetic life) should belong to the entire human race, not Joe McBob who can only see lawsuits and dollar signs.
Why the fuck didn't you release the decision on Bilski v Kappos yesterday?!?!?! It's been freakin' months! DAMN YOUS!!!! DAMN YOUS ALL TA HELLLLLL!
Note: I am aware that the Bilski case has nothing to do with TFA.
Ok..... So..... Should we apologize to you, or something? It's entertainment. Many people enjoy it. You do not. Why does discussion about it offend your ears so much? And for that matter, why do you feel the need to be so antagonistic about it?
I was just presenting my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Because I was, admittedly, rather inflammatory with my posts elsewhere in this thread.
Alrighty then, you guys can't cry "monopoly" any more.
Define "You guys".
I may not personally like Apple as a company, nor do I like most of their products, but I have never once claimed they were a monopoly in any market, either online or in person.
The point is, they won't miss you for a moment. Your freedom will not equal punishing or costing Apple in any measurable way. And do go ahead, buy something else, like I do. You don't need to make them suffer to enjoy your choices. But railing against Apple (or any other successful company that diminishes you) is pointless. Get over it. They will do fine without you.
Sadly true, but it's still the only tool I have to express my opinion on the matter (other than trolling slashdot, of course)
Now, I dare you to find a substitute that has a measurably better attitude. Google? Microsoft? Any cell company? Any call phone/player/netbook maker? All are compromised by profit.
True, but with my WinMo or Android phone, I still have control over my own device...not the other way around.
I can deal with being motivated by profit, that's totally fine. I can't deal with duping people into believing they have a good user experience while simultaneously restricting them. I especially can't deal with a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank while they do it.
For some people, that restriction is what makes the experience good. I am not one of those people.
That's just it though, I personally don't think that it is a better product...hence my opinion.
For a marginal player, they are doing an exceptional job of both capturing outsized profits and driving every other company's cell phone designs and features. They have changed the assumptions about what a smartphone is and in the process they have dramatically grown that market, as people who used to use the inaptly-named "feature phones" started buying smartphones instead. They may not be large in total cell phone market share, but "marginal" is the wrong word to describe them.
See, now THAT I completely agree with. Regardless of my personal opinion on their products, the affect they have had on the market can't be denied.
Thanks for informing us that CPU and graphics are all that go into a computer.
I never said that. What I said is that they use the same CPU and GPUs that "windows" PCs use. CPUs and GPUs (obviously) aren't all that makes up the hardware of a computer, but they are a part of the major indicators for overall performance (the other three being motherboard, hard Drive, and RAM...none of which Apple manufactures, either.)
From that point of view, Apple hardware (as in, the internal hardware, not the shell it sits in) isn't much different from its competitors. Sit someone down in front of OSX running on non-Apple hardware, piped through an Apple monitor, and they would never know the difference. That's my main point here.
Could it be that other people value things you don't? Are you really so arrogant that you think only morons can have a different opinions or values?
Right back at ya. People are free to like Apple all the want...just as I'm free to think they are idiots for doing so. They don't understand why I wouldn't want the integrated experience, and I don't understand why they want to spend more money for the same (internal) hardware.
We are both equally free to express our opinions...which is exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what you are doing. Yay, conversation!
What a sad, narrow little world you must live in.
I wish it was a little more narrow...I'm still carrying around that holiday paunch :/
You keep stating that it is the same hardware, but it isn't. Although apple uses some of the same commodity components as other manufacturers, but they engineer their products quite differently from others with an overall greater emphasis on quality. A4 chip residing in ipads is not "same hardware" that's in other tablets(laugh) and netbooks. The claim that they sell the same hardware as acer, hp, or dell is ridiculous. Apple earns higher margins on their consumer items because their products provide higher value, this is because of software and hardware integration. Other pc makers slap windows on their boxes while apple tailors their software to each device. That's what people pay extra for and thats how apple makes good margins, by offering something no one else can.
You do realize that Apple themselves produces practically none of their internal hardware...right?
Tearedown of the 3GS
iPhone mainboard.
But you just can't deny that business-wise, Apple is doing better than most other PC companies.
Nor would I, as that would be foolish.
It's either this or you seriously believe that every single Apple customer is a brainless moron who doesn't know he is being ripped off.
No, but many of their customers have their heads filled with misinformation (as evidenced by plopping people down in front of OSX on non-Apple hardware...and not being able to tell the difference.)
I don't think Apple is selling the same hardware as most other PC companies.
Really? So they AREN'T using Intel CPUs now? They AREN'T using NVIDIA graphics now?
So, does that mean you wouldn't use OSX on non-Apple hardware?
You do realize that, at this point, Apple computers use mostly the same hardware as "PCs", right...?
When I buy Apple, I buy an experience. I feel like I'm getting good value for money. They charge a premium for that Apple experience, which translates into higher per-unit profits.
I look at it as a win-win.
Clearly, it doesn't work for you. There are still plenty of commodity configs and components for you to choose from, so have at it.
But please, spare us "you are getting reamed" as if we don't know better. We do know better, that's why we buy Apple.
So would you be willing to use OSX if it was just on non-Apple hardware? Would a Hackintosh suit your needs? Or is that glowing logo a necessity for you?
I could say "enjoy being a bottom-feeder and boasting about it" but I'm just too super-cool for that sort of condescension (that big word means talking down to you).
I'd rather be a bottom-feeder than someone who pays twice what I do for the same hardware and calls it an "experience".
Jobs doesn't NEED to give control to the users if Apple is profitable.
You, good sir, using only thirteen words, explained why I will NEVER own an Apple product.
All we know is, buying some Apple shares might be a good idea, because as a business, they're doing a lot better than the competition, even without having a large market share.
::shrug:: defend it however you want. The fact is, they are selling less numbers of the same hardware, but making more money. If you can't see that means they are charging more than their competition for the same hardware, I don't know what to tell you.
And besides, if it's the software that people like so much, why not just build a Hackintosh?
I know, I already adressed that in another post. Obsolete? WTF?
Me personally, I don't want an iPhone because of my problems with Apples restrictions regarding development and your freedom to use your phone. In all honesty, an iPhone would likely provide a better experience than the phone I'm using now...but I don't care. The only way I can show Apple my dissatisfaction with their methods is by voting with my wallet, which is what I've done.
Apple tries to gain a competitive advantage by offering better products, not cheaper ones like most other companies. You can agree or disagree on whether Apple is succesful at this, but it does lead to massive profits and revenues for Apple Inc. So calling this "failure" is a bit... strange, to say the least.
It's a failure of intelligence on the part of their buyers. Think about it:
A) Apple sells less computers than other companies...enough to be number 6 by volume.
B) Apple brings in (according to you) more revenue than most of those five companies in front of it.
C) Apple charges a higher average price for their products that use similar internal hardware as that of their less expensive competitors.
All things considered, that tells me that they are overcharging you for their products.