I sincerely hope your predictions are correct, because Apple has become a true cancer of the worst kind and they are destroying the entire information and hardware industry with legal precedents.
But I'm not as optimistic. Apple is still earning record profits and they're showing no signs of slowing down. People still eat up every new model of iPhone and iPad, plus their Macbooks are still selling like crazy. I agree that Android will probably begin eating more and more of Apple's share in the smartphone markets. However, tablets remain a commodity for those willing to waste^W pay the Apple premium (not only upfront but also the transactions that follow) and I still don't see any strong competitors in the laptop markets. But the most important factor is that they're still profitable and as long as they keep making money (regardless of whether it's record profits or average profits), they're still gonna be a huge threat to the information industry.
This. Personally, I would love to support the sites that I see (and I make a habit of clicking virtually every ad I can see on computers that aren't secured). But the problem is the advertisers. The tactics that they pull are just beyond obscene: Flash cookies, Evercookies, IP tracking, Like/+1/etc. buttons on every site you visit, other JS shenanigans and malware! Now every time I get a new computer or install a new OS (and I use a lot of VMs), I have to take special care to mount/tmp to a ramdisk and then link.adobe and.macromedia to said ramdisk. Then I have to make sure I install all my plugins and get them fully configured, whitelists and all. Worst of all is that even legitimate services pop up in Ghostery blockers like banks! And I know that there is a varying spectrum in the obnoxiousness of ad-providers, but at this point, the cat is out of the bag. It's not like anyone is actively doing something to rein in the fucking pricks that are so bold to pull stunts like these.
Personally, I have ABP and it's disabled (I had even forgotten that it's there until I glanced at the icon). But I do use NoScript and Ghostery set to full blast. Not because I want to screw over the sites I enjoy; no, really it's just a matter of protecting myself, securing my computer and making sure that I don't give any information to someone who treats me as nothing more than an asset. I will not give up these rights just to browse the internet.
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
My memory is fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to research this myself, but my understanding is that part of the deal in the US (and probably other nations) that allowed the acquisition to go through was that Google would not aggressively attack others with the IP that they acquired from the deal.
Is this not the case? And if it is, wouldn't these actions be in violation of that agreement? Could Google face some sort of kickback for breaching this agreement, or possibly even an antitrust case?
I would take care not to mistake them as a company that's changed their ways when in reality, the only reason they don't seem as bad as they used to be is because they're much weaker than before. I'm sure that if they had the same dominant position they had back in the late '90s, they would be up to the same tactics as they were before since they got away with it all after an antitrust suit that really didn't punish them much at all.
No, I think in reality, it does no one any good to compare the vices (or virtues) of two different entities. Both are evil and despicable and make the world a worse place than it would be without such perpetration.
Sigh, so sick of this argument. So let's have a thought exercise. Suppose Apple sells 2% of all phones and they all run iOS, and then 98 other companies each sell 1% of all phones and all use Android. Which platform would you say is winning? iOS or Android? Besides, the fact that Apple feels threatened because they're suing vendors left right and center is very telling.
Apple zealots love denying uncomfortable facts, but face it - iOS is second to Android. Apple may be ahead of Moto or HTC, but they're losing to Android, and it gets worse for them every day (until their lawyers and the general ignorance of the courts/politicians save their asses). But spin it however you like if that's what you want to believe.
I take back what I said about Ars - the few articles I found since he's been outed do mention that he's on payroll of some of the companies he supports.
This is pretty awesome. Oracle may have suffered in their public image in a few ways, but this is some actual damage that's come about by this ridiculous lawsuit. If they invested a decent amount of money in hiring those shills, chances are that those shills are going to be heavily diminished in value once their covers are outed.
On the other hand, the media still sucks up everything Muller writes, so maybe it's not that significant. Regardless, this is a good ruling for honesty.
What if I told you that I'm a financing expert and that you should invest all your money in $COMPANY because I make you think that their stock is going way up when I didn't really know if it were true, but my motivations were really coming from the fact that I was getting a commission every time someone bought a stock I referred them to? Would you not feel deceived and manipulated in a way that would make me a criminal?
It's one thing to say something which is full of bias, but when you're doing it becaues you were bought off, that's downright corrupt, because you're not the one speaking, it's the money that's doing the talking.This is particularly important when you can sway the public opinion (because Florian has such a large presence in the media, primarily cause they're stoopid) and influence the public which has to sit in as juror for the trial[1]. So that being said, it's pretty important that we know who (and what) is doing all the talking.
[1] Yes I know the jury isn't supposed to read media coverage during the trial, but they could still be influenced beforehand.
I recall back around the 4.0 days it was called by its codenames like Shiretoko or something like that, but I'm using FF on Arch right now and it looks fully branded to me. Not sure when, how or why that changed. I think the problem that they had before was that they didn't want anyone compromising their image by modifying it, so they made it so you couldn't use their trademarks if you modded it. I don't see anything unreasonable about that to be honest.
I'm pretty sure the only people that still have a problem with it are the ardently uncompromising folks that run Debian, but they dealt with it fine.
To be honest, I don't get the FF haters. Yeah the devs do some stupid things and the project doesn't have great direction, but they're doing such an importantly good thing that it's completely worth any of these annoyances that people give a row about. I like my privacy and I'll continue to support the browser that does the most to ensure that. (And why I say the browser that does the most, I mean of the most mainstream ones.)
The UN is not democratic or even representative of the People it is bossing around. I don't have a gentleman representing me & making my voice heard in the world government.
And how would this be any different from the current situation? America itself is hardly democratic and even if it were, what kind representation do non-Americans have on the council?
Not that I really have an opinion on the issue. It doesn't seem right that the US should have the only say on the direction of the Net. But I doubt the UN would do a better job.
I hope so as well, as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to be as lucky as we were in the Oracle case. Judge Alsup really was one of a kind, even going out of his way to school himself on Java in order to better understand the case. Judge Koh doesn't seem particularly enlightened or intelligent, particularly since she already issued an injunction on Apple's patents, which are trivial to say the least.
But let's hope for the best. The case is still going to be decided by a jury, so hopefully they'll make the right decision. Apple's campaign against competition needs to be quashed.
1. Yes. 2. I'll agree that TFA is slight on details (from Doctorow no less), but it's irrelevant because you're still defending Apple choosing to censor (and you say I'm the one with philosophical issues when you label me a hater).
I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship. You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest. Worse, you make this argument even though it would be morally wrong for other 'peers' of Apple to do so. My argument is contrary to your opinion that one should not make exceptions for Apple because they've established a model of seeking business efforts within walled gardens. I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
What they're doing is blocking knowledge because it stands against their goals. Yes, it's just a product, but when you look at the reason for doing so, it's clearly derived from censorship means. They want to block an entire book because a small section of it suggests fraternizing with their competitors. Strangling dissenting opinions is definitely censorship, I don't care if it's 'just a product.' Apple doesn't get special treatment cause of The Shiny.
18%: 1. Calculate 20% 2. 10% of #1. 3. subtract 2 from 1.
12.5%: 1. Divide by 8 OR 1. Divide by 10 2. Divide #1 by 4 3. Add #2 and #1.
Not so hard. This is the kind of arithmetic operations that 10-year-olds learn.
Besides, any of these are easy enough to approximate by just adding a few dollars here or there. And do you really have to be that precise? Would you really give someone a tip of 9.90$?
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely hope your predictions are correct, because Apple has become a true cancer of the worst kind and they are destroying the entire information and hardware industry with legal precedents.
But I'm not as optimistic. Apple is still earning record profits and they're showing no signs of slowing down. People still eat up every new model of iPhone and iPad, plus their Macbooks are still selling like crazy. I agree that Android will probably begin eating more and more of Apple's share in the smartphone markets. However, tablets remain a commodity for those willing to waste^W pay the Apple premium (not only upfront but also the transactions that follow) and I still don't see any strong competitors in the laptop markets. But the most important factor is that they're still profitable and as long as they keep making money (regardless of whether it's record profits or average profits), they're still gonna be a huge threat to the information industry.
Remind me, do any of the politicians or judges care about the public once they're in power?
This. Personally, I would love to support the sites that I see (and I make a habit of clicking virtually every ad I can see on computers that aren't secured). But the problem is the advertisers. The tactics that they pull are just beyond obscene: Flash cookies, Evercookies, IP tracking, Like/+1/etc. buttons on every site you visit, other JS shenanigans and malware! Now every time I get a new computer or install a new OS (and I use a lot of VMs), I have to take special care to mount /tmp to a ramdisk and then link .adobe and .macromedia to said ramdisk. Then I have to make sure I install all my plugins and get them fully configured, whitelists and all. Worst of all is that even legitimate services pop up in Ghostery blockers like banks! And I know that there is a varying spectrum in the obnoxiousness of ad-providers, but at this point, the cat is out of the bag. It's not like anyone is actively doing something to rein in the fucking pricks that are so bold to pull stunts like these.
Personally, I have ABP and it's disabled (I had even forgotten that it's there until I glanced at the icon). But I do use NoScript and Ghostery set to full blast. Not because I want to screw over the sites I enjoy; no, really it's just a matter of protecting myself, securing my computer and making sure that I don't give any information to someone who treats me as nothing more than an asset. I will not give up these rights just to browse the internet.
Then maybe I'll consider picking up a copy....
Would that logic suggest that MS should have already killed the Xbox and their entire online division?
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
My memory is fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to research this myself, but my understanding is that part of the deal in the US (and probably other nations) that allowed the acquisition to go through was that Google would not aggressively attack others with the IP that they acquired from the deal.
Is this not the case? And if it is, wouldn't these actions be in violation of that agreement? Could Google face some sort of kickback for breaching this agreement, or possibly even an antitrust case?
Nah, I'd prefer to let him go on. I'm looking forward to the brainbust he's gonna have when he looks at the other witnesses...
One reason: World War II.
Not true:
https://spideroak.com/faq/questions/3/does_spideroak_use_encryption_when_storing_and_transferring_data/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/spideroak-dropbox-for-the-security-obsessive/
Disclamer: I have not used this service.
Here are some more (same disclaimer):
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/secure-files-3-encrypted-dropbox-alternatives/
You're so right, because Apple would never do the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
I would take care not to mistake them as a company that's changed their ways when in reality, the only reason they don't seem as bad as they used to be is because they're much weaker than before. I'm sure that if they had the same dominant position they had back in the late '90s, they would be up to the same tactics as they were before since they got away with it all after an antitrust suit that really didn't punish them much at all.
No, I think in reality, it does no one any good to compare the vices (or virtues) of two different entities. Both are evil and despicable and make the world a worse place than it would be without such perpetration.
Sigh, so sick of this argument. So let's have a thought exercise. Suppose Apple sells 2% of all phones and they all run iOS, and then 98 other companies each sell 1% of all phones and all use Android. Which platform would you say is winning? iOS or Android? Besides, the fact that Apple feels threatened because they're suing vendors left right and center is very telling.
Apple zealots love denying uncomfortable facts, but face it - iOS is second to Android. Apple may be ahead of Moto or HTC, but they're losing to Android, and it gets worse for them every day (until their lawyers and the general ignorance of the courts/politicians save their asses). But spin it however you like if that's what you want to believe.
What a simpleton! He was clearly proven wrong when we invented the Rectangle with Rounded Corners.
I take back what I said about Ars - the few articles I found since he's been outed do mention that he's on payroll of some of the companies he supports.
It's been known for a few months now:
In April 2012, Müller said he had been hired by Oracle to consult on competition-related topics including FRAND licensing terms.[33]
He also consults with Microsoft.[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller#Google_vs_Oracle_copyright
And for the record, nobody in the media cares. Shows how much integrity they have... even Ars still reports the tripe he spews out.
This is pretty awesome. Oracle may have suffered in their public image in a few ways, but this is some actual damage that's come about by this ridiculous lawsuit. If they invested a decent amount of money in hiring those shills, chances are that those shills are going to be heavily diminished in value once their covers are outed.
On the other hand, the media still sucks up everything Muller writes, so maybe it's not that significant. Regardless, this is a good ruling for honesty.
It's called fraud, my friend.
What if I told you that I'm a financing expert and that you should invest all your money in $COMPANY because I make you think that their stock is going way up when I didn't really know if it were true, but my motivations were really coming from the fact that I was getting a commission every time someone bought a stock I referred them to? Would you not feel deceived and manipulated in a way that would make me a criminal?
It's one thing to say something which is full of bias, but when you're doing it becaues you were bought off, that's downright corrupt, because you're not the one speaking, it's the money that's doing the talking.This is particularly important when you can sway the public opinion (because Florian has such a large presence in the media, primarily cause they're stoopid) and influence the public which has to sit in as juror for the trial[1]. So that being said, it's pretty important that we know who (and what) is doing all the talking.
[1] Yes I know the jury isn't supposed to read media coverage during the trial, but they could still be influenced beforehand.
We don't get to see stuff from the old continent unless it's either rebranded, or old and made by a government grant to nigh amateurs.
I'll just back this point up by bringing up Top Gear. Get the American version off the air. Put the real version on.
I recall back around the 4.0 days it was called by its codenames like Shiretoko or something like that, but I'm using FF on Arch right now and it looks fully branded to me. Not sure when, how or why that changed. I think the problem that they had before was that they didn't want anyone compromising their image by modifying it, so they made it so you couldn't use their trademarks if you modded it. I don't see anything unreasonable about that to be honest.
I'm pretty sure the only people that still have a problem with it are the ardently uncompromising folks that run Debian, but they dealt with it fine.
To be honest, I don't get the FF haters. Yeah the devs do some stupid things and the project doesn't have great direction, but they're doing such an importantly good thing that it's completely worth any of these annoyances that people give a row about. I like my privacy and I'll continue to support the browser that does the most to ensure that. (And why I say the browser that does the most, I mean of the most mainstream ones.)
The UN is not democratic or even representative of the People it is bossing around. I don't have a gentleman representing me & making my voice heard in the world government.
And how would this be any different from the current situation? America itself is hardly democratic and even if it were, what kind representation do non-Americans have on the council?
Not that I really have an opinion on the issue. It doesn't seem right that the US should have the only say on the direction of the Net. But I doubt the UN would do a better job.
I hope so as well, as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to be as lucky as we were in the Oracle case. Judge Alsup really was one of a kind, even going out of his way to school himself on Java in order to better understand the case. Judge Koh doesn't seem particularly enlightened or intelligent, particularly since she already issued an injunction on Apple's patents, which are trivial to say the least.
But let's hope for the best. The case is still going to be decided by a jury, so hopefully they'll make the right decision. Apple's campaign against competition needs to be quashed.
1. Yes.
2. I'll agree that TFA is slight on details (from Doctorow no less), but it's irrelevant because you're still defending Apple choosing to censor (and you say I'm the one with philosophical issues when you label me a hater).
I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship. You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest. Worse, you make this argument even though it would be morally wrong for other 'peers' of Apple to do so. My argument is contrary to your opinion that one should not make exceptions for Apple because they've established a model of seeking business efforts within walled gardens. I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
What they're doing is blocking knowledge because it stands against their goals. Yes, it's just a product, but when you look at the reason for doing so, it's clearly derived from censorship means. They want to block an entire book because a small section of it suggests fraternizing with their competitors. Strangling dissenting opinions is definitely censorship, I don't care if it's 'just a product.' Apple doesn't get special treatment cause of The Shiny.
18%:
1. Calculate 20%
2. 10% of #1.
3. subtract 2 from 1.
12.5%:
1. Divide by 8
OR
1. Divide by 10
2. Divide #1 by 4
3. Add #2 and #1.
Not so hard. This is the kind of arithmetic operations that 10-year-olds learn.
Besides, any of these are easy enough to approximate by just adding a few dollars here or there. And do you really have to be that precise? Would you really give someone a tip of 9.90$?