It's part of the chess match. Samsung creates pretty much identical,perhaps even better UI based on iOS. Apple looks at what will be hard to copy and determines that deep GPU integration in the core OS just isn't going to work in the permutations of CPUs that Samsung has to support. Apple finds a way to use these features to marginally enhance the OS experience, but in a flashy way that can be sold in TV commercials and just looks cool when people are in a phone store.
Now you're Samsung: do you spend a ton of money/effort trying to clone these effects, or do you first see if you can convince people that they are actually a bad thing? I know what I'd do.
True that Apple goes for one big splash a year. But given that Samsung spends more advertising its mobile phones than Apple, Microsoft, HP, Dell, and Coca Cola *combined* spend advertising *all* of their products... and I'm not sure it's fair to say that hype drives Apple's sales more than other companies'.
Also, the implication is that he *has been* an Oracle "employee", when in fact he *just became* a contractor. The story impugns his motives for stuff long before he became a contractor.
It is a pretty good example of how to take a few literally true facts, add a few distortions ("employee" versus "contractor"), and imply a false history... and end up with character assassination that's more or less sort of true, but wildly misleading. Submitter should go into politics.
The two are inseparable. Consider that you are Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, or really any big company. A patent troll comes to you and offers a chance to buy in to their patent pool -- you will gain a blanket license to their entire portfolio for only $500m, presented as an equity investment.
Your patent attorneys look through the pool and determine that, if they were to sue you on every patent they have a 50% chance of winning, the expected outcome is $750m. Even if you prevailed in every case, legal costs would be about $100m.
What do you do? Keep in mind that you're publicly traded and shareholders -- the board -- isn't going to look kindly on personal crusades that disregard best outcomes for your company.
...and it's just inconvenient, not having a word for 10^9. "Six hundred fifty three thousand million" is incredibly awkward to parse. At least, for an American.
Nothing wrong with a little brand destruction in the name of increasing short term revenue, especially if you're looking to make an exit.
But yeah, I've noticed my visits to slashdot have gone from twice-daily to daily to weekly over the past few months. I'm not even sure how much to ascribe to the slimy mix of content and advertising and how much reflects the general loss of quality and tendency to be days behind CNN rather than days ahead.
Our reality: Apple doubles tablet resolution; Slashdot rolls eyes and talks about how unnecessary it is and how it confirms Apple is all about style over substance and is just a distraction from the evil / closed nature of the company and platform.
Somewhere, in an alternate reality: Samsung ships a 250DPI 10" tablet; Slashdot explodes in triumph with talks about how it's the most amazing breakthrough ever, will revolutionize tablet use, and confirms Android's role as an innovation leader and the general superiority of the completely open platform.
You know that Foxconn makes products for Motorola, right? And that there is a proportional likelihood that any given Foxconn suicide was working on a Motrolla product?
Other Android "manufacturers" that use Foxconn for prodcut assembly and are therefore every bit as culpable as Apple, but never mentioned because it's against the narrative: Acer Inc., Amazon.com, Asus, Barnes & Noble, Samsung, Sony Ericsson.
The world must be a really confusing place for you, if you actually believe that drivel. And it must be terrifying to see more and more "iSheep", these inferior beings who are sucked in by slick advertising and mindlessly buy crappy products.
On the bright side, with those remarkable powers of self-delusion and reality denial, plus a superiority complex, you may have a promising career in politics.
Indeed. It's a shame that companies like Dell, HP, Asus, and HTC have to charge the same price for their "Made in the US" products that Apple charges for their Chinese-produced goods./facepalm
Yes, and that's why high school physics classes should give equal credence to the idea that things fall to the ground because they want to.
That is a pretty remarkable job you've done of conflating incompleteness with incorrectness and what "no scientist should ever question" with what should be taught to kids in school as generally correct. I appreciate the insight into the reasoning.
Leaving aside the difference between lawsuits and prosecution, that would mean anyone who loses a lawsuit once would have impunity to do those same things over and over again in the future. Probably not a great basis for a legal system.
Depends what you mean by "feature wise". If we ignore screen size (7" versus 10"), memory (8GB versus 16GB), construction (plastic versus aluminum), UX (sluggish versus snappy), thickness (0.45" versus 0.34"), glass coating (none versus oleophobic), camera (none versus front and back), and bluetooth (none versus yes), the features are competitive.
The Fire may be a better value for you if you don't *want* the iPad's extra features, but it's not like there's feature parity for the $300 price difference.
Are you suggesting that/. shouldn't run news that has a negative tone, or that they should have found a more positive blurb for the Fire?
It seems pretty fair and accurately representative of what I'm reading elsewhere. I don't see that/. has an editorial obligation to support Apple competitors no matter what the real story is.
Because any system with a test intentionally scheduled at a time of low disruption is necessarily misguided. I'll let the IT guys know the restore test they were planning for 2am is pointless because I won't be around to notice it.
Slashdot Mirror
Damned if you obviously copy Apple, damned if you intentionally go with the inferior solution that Apple rejected.
[citation needed]
Also, don't go to retail stores because they can tell a lot about you by the way you dress and talk.
That would be meaningless, if someone were doing it. Where did you see that?
It's part of the chess match. Samsung creates pretty much identical,perhaps even better UI based on iOS. Apple looks at what will be hard to copy and determines that deep GPU integration in the core OS just isn't going to work in the permutations of CPUs that Samsung has to support. Apple finds a way to use these features to marginally enhance the OS experience, but in a flashy way that can be sold in TV commercials and just looks cool when people are in a phone store.
Now you're Samsung: do you spend a ton of money/effort trying to clone these effects, or do you first see if you can convince people that they are actually a bad thing? I know what I'd do.
True that Apple goes for one big splash a year. But given that Samsung spends more advertising its mobile phones than Apple, Microsoft, HP, Dell, and Coca Cola *combined* spend advertising *all* of their products... and I'm not sure it's fair to say that hype drives Apple's sales more than other companies'.
Yes, I'm sure plenty of people will leave the company to protest the use of an email form letter.
Also, the implication is that he *has been* an Oracle "employee", when in fact he *just became* a contractor. The story impugns his motives for stuff long before he became a contractor.
It is a pretty good example of how to take a few literally true facts, add a few distortions ("employee" versus "contractor"), and imply a false history... and end up with character assassination that's more or less sort of true, but wildly misleading. Submitter should go into politics.
The two are inseparable. Consider that you are Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, or really any big company. A patent troll comes to you and offers a chance to buy in to their patent pool -- you will gain a blanket license to their entire portfolio for only $500m, presented as an equity investment.
Your patent attorneys look through the pool and determine that, if they were to sue you on every patent they have a 50% chance of winning, the expected outcome is $750m. Even if you prevailed in every case, legal costs would be about $100m.
What do you do? Keep in mind that you're publicly traded and shareholders -- the board -- isn't going to look kindly on personal crusades that disregard best outcomes for your company.
...and it's just inconvenient, not having a word for 10^9. "Six hundred fifty three thousand million" is incredibly awkward to parse. At least, for an American.
Nothing wrong with a little brand destruction in the name of increasing short term revenue, especially if you're looking to make an exit.
But yeah, I've noticed my visits to slashdot have gone from twice-daily to daily to weekly over the past few months. I'm not even sure how much to ascribe to the slimy mix of content and advertising and how much reflects the general loss of quality and tendency to be days behind CNN rather than days ahead.
Too bad Daisy hasn't hit on the "Obama suckered me into making those absurd comments; blame him, not me" response.
Our reality: Apple doubles tablet resolution; Slashdot rolls eyes and talks about how unnecessary it is and how it confirms Apple is all about style over substance and is just a distraction from the evil / closed nature of the company and platform.
Somewhere, in an alternate reality: Samsung ships a 250DPI 10" tablet; Slashdot explodes in triumph with talks about how it's the most amazing breakthrough ever, will revolutionize tablet use, and confirms Android's role as an innovation leader and the general superiority of the completely open platform.
Let's save all of those poor asian wage slaves by boycotting products from asia. That'll help 'em!
You know that Foxconn makes products for Motorola, right? And that there is a proportional likelihood that any given Foxconn suicide was working on a Motrolla product?
Other Android "manufacturers" that use Foxconn for prodcut assembly and are therefore every bit as culpable as Apple, but never mentioned because it's against the narrative: Acer Inc., Amazon.com, Asus, Barnes & Noble, Samsung, Sony Ericsson.
The world must be a really confusing place for you, if you actually believe that drivel. And it must be terrifying to see more and more "iSheep", these inferior beings who are sucked in by slick advertising and mindlessly buy crappy products.
On the bright side, with those remarkable powers of self-delusion and reality denial, plus a superiority complex, you may have a promising career in politics.
Indeed. It's a shame that companies like Dell, HP, Asus, and HTC have to charge the same price for their "Made in the US" products that Apple charges for their Chinese-produced goods. /facepalm
Yes, and that's why high school physics classes should give equal credence to the idea that things fall to the ground because they want to.
That is a pretty remarkable job you've done of conflating incompleteness with incorrectness and what "no scientist should ever question" with what should be taught to kids in school as generally correct. I appreciate the insight into the reasoning.
Leaving aside the difference between lawsuits and prosecution, that would mean anyone who loses a lawsuit once would have impunity to do those same things over and over again in the future. Probably not a great basis for a legal system.
Dude, you're comparing manually install via APK to apps downloaded from Apple's App Store? Are you confused or dishonest?
Tell me again how the Carrier IQ problem is baseless? Ignore inconvenient facts much?
+1 for self-righteous, -2 for being wrong.
Um. Google *can* and does remotely delete apps from phones:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/03/google-using-remote-kill-switch-to-swat-android-malware-apps.ars
And given that Android phones can report what apps you use to carriers, that's probably a really bad idea in a place like Syria.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/11/16/verizon_and_sprint_using_rootkit_to_collect_data_from_android_phones
Depends what you mean by "feature wise". If we ignore screen size (7" versus 10"), memory (8GB versus 16GB), construction (plastic versus aluminum), UX (sluggish versus snappy), thickness (0.45" versus 0.34"), glass coating (none versus oleophobic), camera (none versus front and back), and bluetooth (none versus yes), the features are competitive.
The Fire may be a better value for you if you don't *want* the iPad's extra features, but it's not like there's feature parity for the $300 price difference.
Are you suggesting that /. shouldn't run news that has a negative tone, or that they should have found a more positive blurb for the Fire?
It seems pretty fair and accurately representative of what I'm reading elsewhere. I don't see that /. has an editorial obligation to support Apple competitors no matter what the real story is.
Because any system with a test intentionally scheduled at a time of low disruption is necessarily misguided. I'll let the IT guys know the restore test they were planning for 2am is pointless because I won't be around to notice it.
Wait, walk me through the logic there. Why doesn't such a system matter in the future if a previous system wasn't used in the past?