... Apple has been very accurate in shooting themselves in the foot recently with the iOS6 changes (like the new app store and the introduced artificial slowing down of the phone to make you upgrade)...
[cite needed]
Furthermore, what is the app you're developing? Is it a hobby or are you trying to profit from it?
Not everyone needs a $600 smartphone, and it's an oversight on Apple's part.
Not an oversight. They chose to give up on that 47%. They will never buy Apple stuff anyway.
Don't confuse policy/politics with business. In politics, you need to get 50% of your "market" or you lose. Plus you only get to play every 2/3/4/5 years (depending on your "market").
Not so in business, even targeting a solid 15-20% of the market that's high-margin is often considered a solid plan. e.g.: BMW they clearly don't compete with Toyota or GM for marketshare, yet have a thriving, highly profitable business and a stellar brand. Same with Apple in desktop computing.
Have we stopped to consider that this may increase the number of things people get written up for because the officer will be less likely to 'let it slide'? How rampant is police abuse really? Sure, I've seen cops be dicks about things, but I've also had them let me off the hook. If everything they were doing was being recorded, I don't think they would have been as lenient.
I'm going to assume you're not black, latino or homeless.
Note: This is some random guy in a state requesting it for his entire state. I'd say the answer should be: ask your duly elected representatives, not me, the President.
Why should Samsung not start to remove it's "favored partner" status discounts?
Seriously, if I were Samsung, I'd say...hey...sorry for the delay. But a worker at the factory that builds your screens destroyed vital equipment over his duress at your lawsuit. We can't produce anything for a year.
At which point the contractual damages clause kicks in, and Samsung faces some weak quarters. It would be a very lose-lose move and might draw regulatory oversight.
At this point, even simple mistakes have huge consequences.
The Galaxy S3 (their biggest seller) is selling slightly faster than Apple's biggest seller (the iPhone 4s), in terms of units.
This was Q3 information, when the 4S was the latest iPhone available and the 5 was just around the corner. So you can either a) update with latest information (which does not exist) or b) use past tense, as this is all old information.
All of Apple's contracts combined (display, processor, memory, etc) only account for about 3% of Samsung's annual revenue and probably less than 1% of their profits (components are typically low margin). While Apple is a big customer, they aren't really a "golden goose" for Samsung.
How much of the rest of the company's semiconductor profits are due to the economies of scale that Apple brings? Yes, they're the top dog now, but they don't own Android, and users can be fickle from one year to the next.
I don't think Samsung can that easily dispose of Apple's business.
Win each district by one vote? You get all the votes, and hence all the states and the election! How stupid is that?
It's quantization. Just that your granularity of quanta in the current electoral college is winner-take-all for state level (for 48 of 50 states and D.C.). At this level it's very inefficient. In order to corrupt the entire process, a swing state or two can be targeted, and corrupted (see FL in 2000, OH in 2004) so that votes are spoiled, missing, etc.
Quantizing at the individual vote level would lead to complete ignorance of the rural vote (not a horrible thing in my opinion, but undesirable to many states currently) in favor of large urban centers - candidate who wins most biggest cities wins presidency.
Instead, quantizing at the district level gives you some balance between the rural and urban centers, while also making it much more difficult for a single secretary of state to swing votes to his/her party. 1EV per district. You can even add 2EV for the winner of each state to match the current congress size, so the little states do get some respect for being full states.
Of course, this also runs into the problem of gerrymandering as all districts are freakily gerrymandered right now.
1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines. 2. Get rid of the electoral college. 3. Get Congress to override Citizen United. 4. Take the money out of the electoral system.
#1 will not eliminate the lines, likely it would increase them (not that it's a bad thing). Perhaps we should do like France and do it on a Sunday. Regardless we need more polling locations and staffing = more public money devoted to the electoral process. Whereas #2 and #3 are worthwhile goals in their own right, I don't think they are as key to the voting issue as changing the electoral mechanics of "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) voting scheme (aka, plurality voting) [1]. FPTP has been widely criticized [1.1] Best options for replacement are Instant Runoff [2] or Approval Voting [3]. By making voting 3rd party feasible, you remove the spoiler effect. By strengthening 3rd parties, you instantly alleviate the "voting for the lesser evil". Money in politics, like trolls on the internet = going to persist forever. What's the problem is that we have an easily exploitable voting system. For example, if you ran a blog without an excellent moderation system, you're soon turned into a spam forum or some moneyed interest will just use your pages for advertising their wares or opinion (see the blogs on many newspapers or youtube - a cesspool that would make 4chan blush). Imagine if slashdot had no moderation.
We need a "moderation" scheme that systematically removes/reforms the voting process - one that isn't inherently broken.
3) Series hybrids have a niche (garbage trucks and buses, mostly), and passenger cars are not that niche. This is why the Volt and Karma are failures.
The Karma is a mess of problems, but the Volt is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination [1]. Sure it doesn't have the hype that the Prius did back in 2004, but it's a 40 mile ranged electric car that solves the range problem by including a gas-engine powerplant.
I do concede that the Model S is drool-worthy and I'd prefer one, but I've seen Volts around where I live and they're snappy, quiet, look nice and cost half as much as the Tesla... oh, and they have zero range problems as they reuse the existing petrol-distribution network. Definitely a geek status symbol (just not as big as the Tesla).
The proposal is that rich people invest in business, creating more new jobs and more value. Poor people spend their money on stuff.
The fact may still be that rich people invest... they just doing in third world countries so all that investment is basically doing nothing for the local/federal tax base... worse, it moves jobs overseas.
I don't know but I can only guess that having all VNV Nation albums alone would be 2+ GB, possibly 2.5.
then upload them to google music, and then they only use up 0 bytes of local storage.
Places where this idea fails:
Airplane without internet service (ie, most)
In a location where cell service is horrible
In a car where you pass by a weak or locked wifi point and you're on promiscuous mode
If you have a wifi-only device, anywhere you don't have wifi
Streaming only really makes sense for home/work situations where you are unlikely to hit a bandwidth availability issue or data cap. Travelling anywhere means it's a crap-shoot, so local storage is as important as ever. I've filled up my 64GB iDevices with plenty of content and have run out of space before taking movies. There is no reason to not get the most available storage of any device you get unless it will never leave home.
The ARM Surface isn't really designed to be a real product. In true Microsoft style it's job is two fold. First, to waste time and keep the M$ faithful from buying an iPad or Android tablet unti the Intel Version of the Surface is ready for production. Secondly, and even more importantly it will allow Microsoft to force ARM tablet manufacturers into paying the famous Microsoft Tax on all tablets they produce or face the wrath ans usual sanctions.
The developers, and "consumers" that buy Windows RT are just cannon fodder.
While your 2nd point is valid from a historical standpoint (Microsoft has repeatedly done this), I doubt it will work in today's tablet market. The iPad is the king of the hill, and there are established competitors like the Kindle Fire and Nexus line. Sure, Microsoft could wield their patent club, but I still don't think they have much to go on.
So, you're saying that a desktop HAS to be vertical? What happened to thinking out of the box? Disappointing, Tim!~
I can fully imagine a 20-24" touch screen lying on my desktop, facing up (maybe angled 10-15 degrees towards me), where my keyboard is right now. That'd be a pretty natural interface. If it had finger touch, plus a more accurate stylus for finer work, it'd be very useful.
MadCow.
Your vision was made vivid 30 years ago in TRON. And Microsoft's "Surface" was originally a multitouch table. But aside from the novelty of such a device, what real use would it provide? Tablets like the iPad are useful because they can easily be used in places like car seats, the kitchen and the bedroom (the lack of stylus is a strength). Your vision, while compelling, doesn't sound any more effective to me on a daily basis than my laptop + keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
Come on! Even a 20-something secretary, who (prior to her employment) hasn't used a computer to do anything aside from "checking facebook", can handle basic file management!
File system management with advances like Content/Document management systems and web and cloud-based everything is no longer a really needed skill. Even the Dino OSs have unified search capabilities and most are moving to "cloud storage".
The problem has never been the secretaries - they do their job well, and aren't the decision-makers in the enterprise. It's the CxOs and middle-management tech-fashionistas who want everything to look like what they use at home - which, given the staleness of the desktop platform over the past 15 years is now "touch", "tablet" and "mobile" (the example given by Threni above is valid - it's easy to share content on mobile, can be tough on desktop). These same creatures are the ones who pushed everything to Microsoft in the 90's when they wanted their "windows and office" in the server room.
Try starting a Chinese company that competes with one of the party backed ones and you'll see how capitalist they are not.
Sure they're capitalist - crony capitalist. Also see no-bid contracts, regulatory capture and laws written by lobbyists. The totalitarians in the USA look to China as a beacon of what is coming here.
I heard the other day, about a lady who's kids were riding scooters in a neighborhood cul-de-sac, in front of their house, with fucking HELMETS on...the Mom got arrested because she was reported by neighbors (who had an ax to grind) that she had them out there unsupervised.
I'd do the same and hope that the Mom went to jail. Motorized scooter (not mopeds, but the push scooters with little motors on them), are not legal to ride anywhere but on your own property. They are not street legal (not safe), and not legal on sidewalks (motor-vehcle). They are loud, and zipping up and down the street for 10 hours a day, I'd call and complain.
The loud part is probably what did them in - these fuckers can be heard blocks away. I'm not surprised the neighbors called the police to get her arrested - this probably wasn't the first time this happened, nor was it the first time there were disagreements between the houses.
I was annoyed as hell one night when one kid in a gas-powered scooter kept whizzing by our house at night - it was the neighbor's kid's friend, and only lasted 15m or so, but near the end I was ready to get out there and yell at the little punk.
If anyone can work miracles and cram x86 into a phone, it's Intel.
Then why haven't they yet? It's not like they haven't been trying for years. Why did Apple (and Google) have to create the market that MS and Intel now feel they need to invade?
Intel is the challenger here, and ARM has proven itself several billion times over.
Fir the medical field and the insurance field? they did. But 486 was the 3rd generation. I had a 386sx Dauphin DTR1 tablet that was used heavily by the FBI and law enforcement in the early 90's.
Wow, the amazing battery life, pervasive wireless internet and super-fast flash memory must've made that thing impressive for it's time.
Your anecdote is like a mainframe guru reminiscing about how powerful their old IBM mainframes were - the use case for a mainframe and a desktop has about the same kind of gulf. Once upon a time, mainframes were absolutely the only way to get computing done. Then it became a (very profitable) niche as workstations, desktops, then laptops (and now tablets) eclipsed what people could do with the technology.
In the coming decades, as technology improves even further, our descendants may be amazed to find out that we put typed on keyboards, phones to our ears or used archaic "cameras" instead of though-transcribing, just blinking their eyes to take snaps and movies and transmitting those to their network with a mere thought.
No, because it is much better to tell people what resolution they get, and what size screen, or such instead of a useless name that means absolutely nothing. The only reason to use such terms is to confuse customers and make it harder to compare your products to the competitions' (of course Apple knows that it's customers don't comparison shop, so they don't really care there)
IPS QSXGA? WTF does this mean to a normal person? Does this chart really help anyone figure out if a device is useful for them? Really they have no idea, because it's not just the size of the pixels, it's how the UI handles it. Retina, while it may be a bit hyperbolic, is very very accessible to the market, and makes sense out of the alphabet or number soup that is display resolution.
Retina is a "brand", and a brand is a promise. Many folks like that kind of speak, and don't care to listen to what they may consider "weasel words" to figure out whether things are going to work for them.
Amazing. I just ordered this online. Apparently the book not only has the quantum hen, but its in multiple languages. I particularly liked the french version of the rhyme.
Plusque-Posible ma poule noire Elle fait ses oeufs dans le quand-provisoir
Sure, at first, some people may notice that there used to be thrift stores. For a while. Some old geezers will say "I remember back in my day when you could just buy things, and then sell them--for cash!--and it was nobody's business but yours". But eventually, it will just be normal. Thrift stores will just be added to the list of businesses that aren't allowed to exist, and so they don't exist. And since they don't exist, nobody will care about getting the law overturned, because they will perceive no demand.
In the real world we have 7.8% U-3 unemployment [1] and 14% U-6 [2] unemployment. With a whole load of people in the past several years who have pretty much given up finding a job (google: participation rate).
When pawn shops, used car dealerships and the like go out of business, it will crater the economy. Sure it may take a couple of years, but it will probably result in at least 10% more unemployment... and the "job makers" aren't going to be able to employ those folks.
This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.
The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.
All of this is true, however if you look at the history of the infamous Citizens United case, you'll find that the court really went out of it's way to use the very narrow case at hand to prove something very much not intuitive from the facts that conveniently gave corporations unlimited power of funding political campaigns without public insight into who is funding them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Before_the_Court
Slashdot Mirror
... Apple has been very accurate in shooting themselves in the foot recently with the iOS6 changes (like the new app store and the introduced artificial slowing down of the phone to make you upgrade)...
[cite needed]
Furthermore, what is the app you're developing? Is it a hobby or are you trying to profit from it?
Not everyone needs a $600 smartphone, and it's an oversight on Apple's part.
Not an oversight. They chose to give up on that 47%. They will never buy Apple stuff anyway.
Don't confuse policy/politics with business. In politics, you need to get 50% of your "market" or you lose. Plus you only get to play every 2/3/4/5 years (depending on your "market").
Not so in business, even targeting a solid 15-20% of the market that's high-margin is often considered a solid plan. e.g.: BMW they clearly don't compete with Toyota or GM for marketshare, yet have a thriving, highly profitable business and a stellar brand. Same with Apple in desktop computing.
Have we stopped to consider that this may increase the number of things people get written up for because the officer will be less likely to 'let it slide'? How rampant is police abuse really? Sure, I've seen cops be dicks about things, but I've also had them let me off the hook. If everything they were doing was being recorded, I don't think they would have been as lenient.
I'm going to assume you're not black, latino or homeless.
Can't we at least let them try it this time?
Note: This is some random guy in a state requesting it for his entire state. I'd say the answer should be: ask your duly elected representatives, not me, the President.
Why should Samsung not start to remove it's "favored partner" status discounts?
Seriously, if I were Samsung, I'd say...hey...sorry for the delay. But a worker at the factory that builds your screens destroyed vital equipment over his duress at your lawsuit. We can't produce anything for a year.
At which point the contractual damages clause kicks in, and Samsung faces some weak quarters. It would be a very lose-lose move and might draw regulatory oversight.
At this point, even simple mistakes have huge consequences.
The Galaxy S3 (their biggest seller) is selling slightly faster than Apple's biggest seller (the iPhone 4s), in terms of units.
This was Q3 information, when the 4S was the latest iPhone available and the 5 was just around the corner. So you can either a) update with latest information (which does not exist) or b) use past tense, as this is all old information.
All of Apple's contracts combined (display, processor, memory, etc) only account for about 3% of Samsung's annual revenue and probably less than 1% of their profits (components are typically low margin). While Apple is a big customer, they aren't really a "golden goose" for Samsung.
How much of the rest of the company's semiconductor profits are due to the economies of scale that Apple brings? Yes, they're the top dog now, but they don't own Android, and users can be fickle from one year to the next.
I don't think Samsung can that easily dispose of Apple's business.
It's as stupid as going with votes by district.
Win each district by one vote? You get all the votes, and hence all the states and the election! How stupid is that?
It's quantization. Just that your granularity of quanta in the current electoral college is winner-take-all for state level (for 48 of 50 states and D.C.). At this level it's very inefficient. In order to corrupt the entire process, a swing state or two can be targeted, and corrupted (see FL in 2000, OH in 2004) so that votes are spoiled, missing, etc.
Quantizing at the individual vote level would lead to complete ignorance of the rural vote (not a horrible thing in my opinion, but undesirable to many states currently) in favor of large urban centers - candidate who wins most biggest cities wins presidency.
Instead, quantizing at the district level gives you some balance between the rural and urban centers, while also making it much more difficult for a single secretary of state to swing votes to his/her party. 1EV per district. You can even add 2EV for the winner of each state to match the current congress size, so the little states do get some respect for being full states.
Of course, this also runs into the problem of gerrymandering as all districts are freakily gerrymandered right now.
1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.
2. Get rid of the electoral college.
3. Get Congress to override Citizen United.
4. Take the money out of the electoral system.
#1 will not eliminate the lines, likely it would increase them (not that it's a bad thing). Perhaps we should do like France and do it on a Sunday. Regardless we need more polling locations and staffing = more public money devoted to the electoral process.
Whereas #2 and #3 are worthwhile goals in their own right, I don't think they are as key to the voting issue as changing the electoral mechanics of "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) voting scheme (aka, plurality voting) [1]. FPTP has been widely criticized [1.1] Best options for replacement are Instant Runoff [2] or Approval Voting [3]. By making voting 3rd party feasible, you remove the spoiler effect. By strengthening 3rd parties, you instantly alleviate the "voting for the lesser evil". Money in politics, like trolls on the internet = going to persist forever. What's the problem is that we have an easily exploitable voting system. For example, if you ran a blog without an excellent moderation system, you're soon turned into a spam forum or some moneyed interest will just use your pages for advertising their wares or opinion (see the blogs on many newspapers or youtube - a cesspool that would make 4chan blush). Imagine if slashdot had no moderation.
We need a "moderation" scheme that systematically removes/reforms the voting process - one that isn't inherently broken.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
[1.1] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/FPTP-bad-for-democracy
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
3) Series hybrids have a niche (garbage trucks and buses, mostly), and passenger cars are not that niche. This is why the Volt and Karma are failures.
The Karma is a mess of problems, but the Volt is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination [1]. Sure it doesn't have the hype that the Prius did back in 2004, but it's a 40 mile ranged electric car that solves the range problem by including a gas-engine powerplant.
I do concede that the Model S is drool-worthy and I'd prefer one, but I've seen Volts around where I live and they're snappy, quiet, look nice and cost half as much as the Tesla... oh, and they have zero range problems as they reuse the existing petrol-distribution network. Definitely a geek status symbol (just not as big as the Tesla).
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/09/24/august-chevrolet-volt-sales-redefine-failure/
The proposal is that rich people invest in business, creating more new jobs and more value. Poor people spend their money on stuff.
The fact may still be that rich people invest ... they just doing in third world countries so all that investment is basically doing nothing for the local/federal tax base... worse, it moves jobs overseas.
A complete snow-job
Apple's retina displays are also a "lottery". They are not all from the same manufacturer.
Just to be clear, the "retina" issues identified above are all related to the Mac Book Pro (retina) not the iPad.
I don't know but I can only guess that having all VNV Nation albums alone would be 2+ GB, possibly 2.5.
then upload them to google music, and then they only use up 0 bytes of local storage.
Places where this idea fails:
Streaming only really makes sense for home/work situations where you are unlikely to hit a bandwidth availability issue or data cap. Travelling anywhere means it's a crap-shoot, so local storage is as important as ever. I've filled up my 64GB iDevices with plenty of content and have run out of space before taking movies. There is no reason to not get the most available storage of any device you get unless it will never leave home.
The ARM Surface isn't really designed to be a real product. In true Microsoft style it's job is two fold. First, to waste time and keep the M$ faithful from buying an iPad or Android tablet unti the Intel Version of the Surface is ready for production. Secondly, and even more importantly it will allow Microsoft to force ARM tablet manufacturers into paying the famous Microsoft Tax on all tablets they produce or face the wrath ans usual sanctions.
The developers, and "consumers" that buy Windows RT are just cannon fodder.
While your 2nd point is valid from a historical standpoint (Microsoft has repeatedly done this), I doubt it will work in today's tablet market. The iPad is the king of the hill, and there are established competitors like the Kindle Fire and Nexus line. Sure, Microsoft could wield their patent club, but I still don't think they have much to go on.
"Touch screens don't want to be vertical"...
So, you're saying that a desktop HAS to be vertical? What happened to thinking out of the box? Disappointing, Tim!~
I can fully imagine a 20-24" touch screen lying on my desktop, facing up (maybe angled 10-15 degrees towards me), where my keyboard is right now. That'd be a pretty natural interface. If it had finger touch, plus a more accurate stylus for finer work, it'd be very useful.
MadCow.
Your vision was made vivid 30 years ago in TRON. And Microsoft's "Surface" was originally a multitouch table. But aside from the novelty of such a device, what real use would it provide? Tablets like the iPad are useful because they can easily be used in places like car seats, the kitchen and the bedroom (the lack of stylus is a strength). Your vision, while compelling, doesn't sound any more effective to me on a daily basis than my laptop + keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
http://www.zdnet.com/writing-business-apps-for-microsofts-windows-8-developers-weigh-in-7000003241/
Come on! Even a 20-something secretary, who (prior to her employment) hasn't used a computer to do anything aside from "checking facebook", can handle basic file management!
File system management with advances like Content/Document management systems and web and cloud-based everything is no longer a really needed skill. Even the Dino OSs have unified search capabilities and most are moving to "cloud storage".
The problem has never been the secretaries - they do their job well, and aren't the decision-makers in the enterprise. It's the CxOs and middle-management tech-fashionistas who want everything to look like what they use at home - which, given the staleness of the desktop platform over the past 15 years is now "touch", "tablet" and "mobile" (the example given by Threni above is valid - it's easy to share content on mobile, can be tough on desktop). These same creatures are the ones who pushed everything to Microsoft in the 90's when they wanted their "windows and office" in the server room.
Try starting a Chinese company that competes with one of the party backed ones and you'll see how capitalist they are not.
Sure they're capitalist - crony capitalist. Also see no-bid contracts, regulatory capture and laws written by lobbyists. The totalitarians in the USA look to China as a beacon of what is coming here.
I heard the other day, about a lady who's kids were riding scooters in a neighborhood cul-de-sac, in front of their house, with fucking HELMETS on...the Mom got arrested because she was reported by neighbors (who had an ax to grind) that she had them out there unsupervised.
I'd do the same and hope that the Mom went to jail. Motorized scooter (not mopeds, but the push scooters with little motors on them), are not legal to ride anywhere but on your own property. They are not street legal (not safe), and not legal on sidewalks (motor-vehcle). They are loud, and zipping up and down the street for 10 hours a day, I'd call and complain.
The loud part is probably what did them in - these fuckers can be heard blocks away. I'm not surprised the neighbors called the police to get her arrested - this probably wasn't the first time this happened, nor was it the first time there were disagreements between the houses.
I was annoyed as hell one night when one kid in a gas-powered scooter kept whizzing by our house at night - it was the neighbor's kid's friend, and only lasted 15m or so, but near the end I was ready to get out there and yell at the little punk.
If anyone can work miracles and cram x86 into a phone, it's Intel.
Then why haven't they yet? It's not like they haven't been trying for years. Why did Apple (and Google) have to create the market that MS and Intel now feel they need to invade?
Intel is the challenger here, and ARM has proven itself several billion times over.
Fir the medical field and the insurance field? they did. But 486 was the 3rd generation. I had a 386sx Dauphin DTR1 tablet that was used heavily by the FBI and law enforcement in the early 90's.
Wow, the amazing battery life, pervasive wireless internet and super-fast flash memory must've made that thing impressive for it's time.
Your anecdote is like a mainframe guru reminiscing about how powerful their old IBM mainframes were - the use case for a mainframe and a desktop has about the same kind of gulf. Once upon a time, mainframes were absolutely the only way to get computing done. Then it became a (very profitable) niche as workstations, desktops, then laptops (and now tablets) eclipsed what people could do with the technology.
In the coming decades, as technology improves even further, our descendants may be amazed to find out that we put typed on keyboards, phones to our ears or used archaic "cameras" instead of though-transcribing, just blinking their eyes to take snaps and movies and transmitting those to their network with a mere thought.
No, because it is much better to tell people what resolution they get, and what size screen, or such instead of a useless name that means absolutely nothing. The only reason to use such terms is to confuse customers and make it harder to compare your products to the competitions' (of course Apple knows that it's customers don't comparison shop, so they don't really care there)
IPS QSXGA? WTF does this mean to a normal person? Does this chart really help anyone figure out if a device is useful for them? Really they have no idea, because it's not just the size of the pixels, it's how the UI handles it. Retina, while it may be a bit hyperbolic, is very very accessible to the market, and makes sense out of the alphabet or number soup that is display resolution.
Retina is a "brand", and a brand is a promise. Many folks like that kind of speak, and don't care to listen to what they may consider "weasel words" to figure out whether things are going to work for them.
Amazing. I just ordered this online. Apparently the book not only has the quantum hen, but its in multiple languages. I particularly liked the french version of the rhyme.
Plusque-Posible ma poule noire
Elle fait ses oeufs dans le quand-provisoir
Sure, at first, some people may notice that there used to be thrift stores. For a while. Some old geezers will say "I remember back in my day when you could just buy things, and then sell them--for cash!--and it was nobody's business but yours". But eventually, it will just be normal. Thrift stores will just be added to the list of businesses that aren't allowed to exist, and so they don't exist. And since they don't exist, nobody will care about getting the law overturned, because they will perceive no demand.
In the real world we have 7.8% U-3 unemployment [1] and 14% U-6 [2] unemployment. With a whole load of people in the past several years who have pretty much given up finding a job (google: participation rate).
When pawn shops, used car dealerships and the like go out of business, it will crater the economy. Sure it may take a couple of years, but it will probably result in at least 10% more unemployment... and the "job makers" aren't going to be able to employ those folks.
[1] http://www.davemanuel.com/2012/10/05/whats-that-unemployment-rate-drops-to-78/
[2] http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/u6-unemployment-rate/
This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.
The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.
All of this is true, however if you look at the history of the infamous Citizens United case, you'll find that the court really went out of it's way to use the very narrow case at hand to prove something very much not intuitive from the facts that conveniently gave corporations unlimited power of funding political campaigns without public insight into who is funding them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Before_the_Court