LOTS of people are talking about Google implicitly, because the "real" alternative for those who want the freedom they do not find in Apple's clauses - is Android.
Er, business licenses cost more than "consumer" licenses in general. Internet for instance is generally more expensive when sold to businesses than for private customers.
The primary reason is that the business will (most likely) profit from the purchase and therefore it is priced higher.
Stores that sell iPods do not have to pay Apple for every non-iPod sold. PC vendors or manufacturers had to enter deals where they paid Microsoft for every non-MSDOS computer sold.
Flash isn't content. Flash is resource-guzzling, proprietary, non-accessible presentation of content that will die a well-deserved death when people find out HTML 5 - or even XHTML + Javascript - is better.
Sure, I have games on my iPhone, they're the 5-minute-break-type games like Bejeweled and friends.
So? That does not mean games like Real Racing, The Settlers, Dungeon Hunter, Monkey Island etc. don't exist for it, because they do. More and more studios are making games for it.
It is SLIGHTLY more expensive than a DSi (and the cheapest iPod Touch is cheaper than the PSP Go), but the games cost less than a tenth of the prices you pay on those other systems. So what do you buy more of? The devices or the games? Methinks it is the latter.
Allegory fail. WalMart does not prevent Target customers from shopping there. They just cannot be forced to sell the same goods that Target does just because a Target customer comes in the door and asks.
If you want a device with full freedom, buy something that has this freedom, the market has provided multiple alternatives to the iPhone. Apple has this strict agreement and rules because they KNOW they will be held liable for what happens with the device anyway, ref. all the barbs thrown at them when users of jailbroken phones were subject to that "ssh-default-password" trojan...
Well, you cannot force Apple to make iPhones. Or, if you do make it so Apple and the phone companies will just blame renegade software if something goes wrong with the device.
Why can't you just BUY A DIFFERENT FUCKING DEVICE THAT BEHAVES AS YOU WANT? I mean, since you want such a device I bet there are enough to form a market, and I am sure a different manufacturer is willing to fill that spot. Indeed many do just that.
Again: It is bizarre to make laws that forces KFC to sell Whoppers just because you are used to Burger King but by mistake might end up going to KFC. Same applies here.
Democracy does not enter into the picture, but the market does.
If you have the choice between a platform with restrictions and a platform without, and you do not want the restrictions, why not choose the product without instead of buying the product with restrictions and then complain it has them?
It's a bit like choosing between a diesel engine car and a gasoline engine car, buy the diesel one and complain it doesn't run on gasoline.
When you are talking about a handwriting recognizing device, that becomes also the device's problem. To what extent should a user have to adapt to the tool and not the other way around?
If a Courier customer finds that the handwriting does not work for them, is that grounds for returning the device as defect? Why not, if the handwriting tech is considered a major device function?
Given California's dire public economy (partly due to "democracy" where clueless people make decisions in referendums with no thought of consequences), I am surprised they do not have a public "tax dodger" registry already.
There have been touch screen displays long before 2008. How much did Apply pay to get this patent?
The standard fees, I guess? What do you mean?
Patents are (ideally) awarded for particular ways of doing things. If a general concept/idea can be implemented in ten different ways, there is nothing wrong with assigning a patent for each of those different ways. The concept of a "touch screen display" probably covers at least five different approaches, including the iPhone/iPod Touch capacitive screens, IR-based solutions, pressure-sensitive screens etc.
In the 1960s, scientists who were studying rats discovered two regions of the brain that contained dividing cells that ultimately become nerve cells. Despite these reports, most scientists believed that the adult brain could not generate new nerve cells. It was not until the 1990s that scientists agreed that the adult brain does contain stem cells that are able to generate the brain's three major cell types—astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, which are non-neuronal cells, and neurons, or nerve cells.
There is also the case where the cotton industry has successfully lobbied against industrial hemp, where the existence of THC (though the amounts in the breeds used for industrial hemp are negligible) is used as an excuse.
So there is a war on the plants sort of separate from the drug war.
No cells really do, but most can be replaced. However:
"Neurons do not undergo cell division, and usually cannot be replaced after being lost, although there are a few known exceptions. In most cases they are generated by special types of stem cells, although astrocytes (a type of glial cell) have been observed to turn into neurons as they are sometimes pluripotent."
There is an existing market, but people are not buying Windows-based tablet PCs because Windows is turned into a bastard when forced onto such a device, disappointing the would-be buyers.
iPad has an interface written for touch devices from the outset.
Flash? Is that the thing Microsoft are removing support for in Windows Phone 7? That power-consuming proprietary product that will be superseded by HTML 5? Websites relying on Flash aren't powered by them but drained by them.
From everyone who has actually tried the iPad, it seems to be MUCH more than just the screen size that is different. Different touches, different app possibilities because of that screen size difference and more features in OS 3.2.
Apps can be built for the iPod Touch and modified versions for the iPad; you are reading too much into the demo showing how to run existing apps.
Slashdot Mirror
The "fair" price was one Nokia were not asking from other manufacturers, i.e. licenses to patents totally unrelated to phone technology.
LOTS of people are talking about Google implicitly, because the "real" alternative for those who want the freedom they do not find in Apple's clauses - is Android.
Please try to keep up.
Er, business licenses cost more than "consumer" licenses in general. Internet for instance is generally more expensive when sold to businesses than for private customers.
The primary reason is that the business will (most likely) profit from the purchase and therefore it is priced higher.
Stores that sell iPods do not have to pay Apple for every non-iPod sold. PC vendors or manufacturers had to enter deals where they paid Microsoft for every non-MSDOS computer sold.
Apple are not abusing their "monopoly".
Flash isn't content. Flash is resource-guzzling, proprietary, non-accessible presentation of content that will die a well-deserved death when people find out HTML 5 - or even XHTML + Javascript - is better.
Sure, I have games on my iPhone, they're the 5-minute-break-type games like Bejeweled and friends.
So? That does not mean games like Real Racing, The Settlers, Dungeon Hunter, Monkey Island etc. don't exist for it, because they do. More and more studios are making games for it.
It is SLIGHTLY more expensive than a DSi (and the cheapest iPod Touch is cheaper than the PSP Go), but the games cost less than a tenth of the prices you pay on those other systems. So what do you buy more of? The devices or the games? Methinks it is the latter.
Allegory fail. WalMart does not prevent Target customers from shopping there. They just cannot be forced to sell the same goods that Target does just because a Target customer comes in the door and asks.
If you want a device with full freedom, buy something that has this freedom, the market has provided multiple alternatives to the iPhone. Apple has this strict agreement and rules because they KNOW they will be held liable for what happens with the device anyway, ref. all the barbs thrown at them when users of jailbroken phones were subject to that "ssh-default-password" trojan...
Well, you cannot force Apple to make iPhones. Or, if you do make it so Apple and the phone companies will just blame renegade software if something goes wrong with the device.
Why can't you just BUY A DIFFERENT FUCKING DEVICE THAT BEHAVES AS YOU WANT? I mean, since you want such a device I bet there are enough to form a market, and I am sure a different manufacturer is willing to fill that spot. Indeed many do just that.
Again: It is bizarre to make laws that forces KFC to sell Whoppers just because you are used to Burger King but by mistake might end up going to KFC. Same applies here.
Democracy does not enter into the picture, but the market does.
If you have the choice between a platform with restrictions and a platform without, and you do not want the restrictions, why not choose the product without instead of buying the product with restrictions and then complain it has them?
It's a bit like choosing between a diesel engine car and a gasoline engine car, buy the diesel one and complain it doesn't run on gasoline.
Have they decided for the last time what the Courier name should be used for?
http://images.appleinsider.com/courier.001.png
They are playing catch-up to Apple so hard it is almost painful to see.
How is he misinforming anyone? If the law says X then the law says X not what some faceless corporation tries to get away with.
He does not post any links to said laws, though. Would have helped his argument a lot.
When you are talking about a handwriting recognizing device, that becomes also the device's problem. To what extent should a user have to adapt to the tool and not the other way around?
If a Courier customer finds that the handwriting does not work for them, is that grounds for returning the device as defect? Why not, if the handwriting tech is considered a major device function?
Microsoft are VERY explicit that the free VS Express CANNOT be used to develop for the mobile platforms though.
Given California's dire public economy (partly due to "democracy" where clueless people make decisions in referendums with no thought of consequences), I am surprised they do not have a public "tax dodger" registry already.
There have been touch screen displays long before 2008. How much did Apply pay to get this patent?
The standard fees, I guess? What do you mean?
Patents are (ideally) awarded for particular ways of doing things. If a general concept/idea can be implemented in ten different ways, there is nothing wrong with assigning a patent for each of those different ways. The concept of a "touch screen display" probably covers at least five different approaches, including the iPhone/iPod Touch capacitive screens, IR-based solutions, pressure-sensitive screens etc.
That's because all the PC owners were sitting in their parents' cozy basement...
Actually that was the theory until the 1990 when stem cells in the brain were discovered: see http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
In the 1960s, scientists who were studying rats discovered two regions of the brain that contained dividing cells that ultimately become nerve cells. Despite these reports, most scientists believed that the adult brain could not generate new nerve cells. It was not until the 1990s that scientists agreed that the adult brain does contain stem cells that are able to generate the brain's three major cell types—astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, which are non-neuronal cells, and neurons, or nerve cells.
Probably a side-effect of ingesting E 666, the Addidtive of the Beast.
There is also the case where the cotton industry has successfully lobbied against industrial hemp, where the existence of THC (though the amounts in the breeds used for industrial hemp are negligible) is used as an excuse.
So there is a war on the plants sort of separate from the drug war.
No cells really do, but most can be replaced. However:
"Neurons do not undergo cell division, and usually cannot be replaced after being lost, although there are a few known exceptions. In most cases they are generated by special types of stem cells, although astrocytes (a type of glial cell) have been observed to turn into neurons as they are sometimes pluripotent."
He might be from one of the variants that considers Jesus to have brought "a new pact" and thus rendering the Old Testament deprecated.
Too bad a microphone wasn't there to record your *hyuck hyuck* sounds as you joined the Choir of Adobists against the "evils" of Apple.
There is an existing market, but people are not buying Windows-based tablet PCs because Windows is turned into a bastard when forced onto such a device, disappointing the would-be buyers.
iPad has an interface written for touch devices from the outset.
Flash? Is that the thing Microsoft are removing support for in Windows Phone 7? That power-consuming proprietary product that will be superseded by HTML 5? Websites relying on Flash aren't powered by them but drained by them.
From everyone who has actually tried the iPad, it seems to be MUCH more than just the screen size that is different. Different touches, different app possibilities because of that screen size difference and more features in OS 3.2.
Apps can be built for the iPod Touch and modified versions for the iPad; you are reading too much into the demo showing how to run existing apps.
"Third Life".