Selling? They would lose money doing that. Now, they can threaten to stop building them in China. That's a threat.
But let’s be honest: this was an Apple fuckup. They have the resources to search these names in all nations and trademark them in time, if taken anywhere; they can just use a different name in the country or pick a name that has not been used.
That being told, perhaps it would be cheaper for Apple to buy out this company than to pay up 1.6 billion.
Reason: When a bunch of high profile senators want to use their one iPhone to handle their email, or the president of the United States himself wants to use his iPad to check his email, they will come up with legal exceptions to allow it.
Sure, can happen with Android, once they forget about CarrierIQ.
I was under the impression they were only in position to claim money for phones with non-Qualcomm devices, since Qualcomm had that agreement already in place. Think the deal is about the chip that was used before they switched to Qualcomm.
Here is my question on this: the infringement to the patent in question, from what has been reported, only applies to iPhones up to the 4, do not include the 4S because it uses a Qualcom chip instead of the previous brand Apple used. Qualcom is making chips that cellphone makers use to make phones. Since Qualcom licenses these patents from Motorola, the phone becomes immune.
This tells me that the issue should not be Apple, but the chip manufacturer. It is that chip maker that failed at licensing the patents, and then used them to make chips it then sold to Apple. Should this case not be directed at that chip manufacturer instead? It's very likely that manufacturer has other clients that are also using this unlicensed chips, so Apple cant be the only target without Motorola suddenly setting themselves up for unfair practices.
Not really true. Other than the geeks that know exactly what Android phone they want, or the apple fans that just want iPhones, and the extremely rare teen that wants a BlackBerry because that's what their friends have and they want to BBM with them, most people leave carrier stores with the phone that the salesman pushed down their throats, and that tends to be Android phones because the carrier gets more profit per unit with those, as they dont pay as high of a subsidy as they do with iPhones or even with BlackBerries.
I have heard many stories about salesmen getting a bonus for every android phone they sell, not sure if the bonus comes from the carrier pocket or the phone manufacturer's though.
So getting mad at bad working conditions is hypocrisy now? we used to call it "altruism".
When applied selectively, it's hypocrisy. Get mad about working conditions, as long as you are equally willing to research and be mad at the poor working conditions at the factories handling Samsung, HTC, and Sony's devices.
Oh but I forgot... no one calling into this made any research, not even bothered asking a chinese citizen about the working conditions in general. They just ate what they saw in some article and used it as ammo in a personal anti-specific-company agenda.
Each state should be entitled to pick their own lab to conduct the study on the scanners. Yes, that means 50 independent studies by local labs. More if we go counting DC and other territories.
Also, should they find any negative effects; any citizen of the state that has been exposed to the scanners should be entitled to an exponential sum for each exposure (since any additional exposure would not just additively increase cancer risks.)
THAT would be a responsible law to go for. But who am I kidding, the TSA now controls too much money, enough to lobby its way into doing anything they want.
From what I hear from people that know better: If you ever experienced American working conditions, you would never find Foxconn working conditions acceptable or even humane. However, if you have never left China, Foxconn may be the best chance at avoiding starvation. Other factories are far worse. In fact, the only reason we hear from Foxconn issues is because of its link to Apple. If we actually cared, we would be hearing about Aigo’s Shenzhen factory, or Samsung's OEM factory in Tianjin, that pays way less to their employees than Foxconn.
A recent episode of House actually did a good gaze on the topic, where the new philanthropist doctor is against a company move to Asia while the Asian doctor insist that is the best chance most people have of a better life relative to their current situation.
We have a choice (as a country not really as consumers) to stay out of China. That choice, though, will just result in forcing a worse life on those employees. But hey, better have them suicide or starve in a farm where only the family has to worry about the corpse!
Let's face it: the press does not care. The press just wants to print articles that get clicks to show ads, and they know Apple related news gets traffic, especially bad news.
Sorry for the rant but this Foxconn hypocrisy really gets to me.
Well, except for the fact that they didn't steal anything, you're right. Xerox gave it away. Willfully.
Not only that: a lot of what they "stole" was just design that Parc never managed to get to work (like the design for overlapping windows.) An apple dev (forget the name) killed himself "inventing" the code to make the overlapping windows work simply because he thought Parc had done it so it had to be possible.
Bull! We all knwo he paid hard stock for that chair, the box of copy paper was taken out of the garbage, the red stapler never existed and the GUI was traded for a used pack of chewing gum!
They did not get a ton of marketing over the ripoff, they got a ton of marketing over their action of mocking the rip-off.
Had they shut up and allowed the rip-off to just waltz by, they would had received no marketing at all.
They got good marketing in the end, yes. But only because of their own actions. Also note: Nimblebit didn’t really go out in a rant either. They just tossed a few jabs about how their 3 man studio is proud to know they are worth being copying by a large studio and how they look forward to being ripped-off in the future.
It is precisely their casual and passive approach that gave most execrators the sympathy that propelled this news across the gaming press.
You should inform yourself before commenting, please.
If you do a simple search, you will see Google has never had any trouble indexing public Twitter or Facebook information. Google simply wanted more than just the public information, they wanted the private data thats locked behind those profiles.
The opposite: just in time to claim they were not in charge the day the company went bankrupt. They may do a W. Bush one here, where they blame the next guy in charge for the economic crisis their administration caused.
I can see it now, few months from now, RIM files for bankruptcy and they go: “We stepped down despite believing we had the right tactic to fix the company, because that’s what the investors wanted. They claimed they were able to do better. We let them try. They failed. Blame them for the death of RIM.”
Nothing wrong with that. Google grew to be the most popular search engine by understanding and implementing what is most acceptable to users of a search page.
The same way they understood that I wanted to see cluttered Google+ results in a sidebar for all my searches!:)
Unfortunately, the way they work, they already have a profile on you even if you dont sign up on their serivce. So many websites add that "useful" Like button, that servers as a tracking trojan, that it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook. They keep growing a profile on you even if you dont have an account. They'll just tie everything up the day you actually make an account to "check some friend's pictures" or something.
Not necessarily true, but I don't think they'll make much of a difference. They might affect Apple sales because some people will look at iMac (or, more likely, have one recommended) but then see this and think "hey, it looks similar enough, I don't care about that extra gloss -- I think I'll get this and save $500". Those people would have bought a Mac, but are either a bit too price sensitive or just not that in to Apple to care that it's not the same thing, and they're going to get a poorer experience as a result.
When a user has already the disposition to spend the extra amount of money on a mac, there are very little aesthetic replacements that will convince him to do otherwise. You are talking about someone that already decided to spend that money on an iMac. If he hasn't, he was never an Apple prospect to begin with, and was going to go to Best Buy to look at their all-in-one desktop offerings.
This is like saying that Toyota can introduce a cheap Ferrari knockoff tomorrow, and prospect Ferrari buyers forego the Ferrari in favor of the cheap knock off. Again: thinking about buying a pretty mac is not the same as having ever accepted to pay the price, meaning you were never a potential customer.
That in itself is fine, but it kind of tarnishes the Apple brand by association. That's why Apple are suing Samsung -- not because of rounded corners and whatnot, but because if you look at it superficially, it appears to be 'a cheaper version of the same thing'. Apple don't want to get lumped in with everyone else, that's way they create individual products and so carefully build and protect their brand.
Apple is going after Samsung not for just one copy. They are going after them because Samsung is overdoing it. They make some of their products not only look like Apple products, but they make the friging box and even the frigging charging cable look like the Apple equivalent! I'm sure you must have seen this image before: http://cdn.iphonehacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/applesamsungsimilar.jpg
Mind you, I think Apple is taking the case too far into too many product lines. Not all Samsung products are Apple knockoffs, but it does seem they have a department dedicated to produce just knockoffs.
This is typical Samsung behavior and they have done it over the years to any dominant force in the market. Apple is not the first one to sue them over it. The Samsung BlackJack was just a copy of a Blackberry (and got sued by RIM over it's name) and same goes for the Samsung SYNC vz Motorola RAZR. It's Samsung's DNA to just copy design. I am not too familiar with Android Phones (too many of them) but I'm sure you will find an EVO ripoff somewhere in the Samsung lineup.
Slashdot Mirror
Selling? They would lose money doing that. Now, they can threaten to stop building them in China. That's a threat.
But let’s be honest: this was an Apple fuckup. They have the resources to search these names in all nations and trademark them in time, if taken anywhere; they can just use a different name in the country or pick a name that has not been used.
That being told, perhaps it would be cheaper for Apple to buy out this company than to pay up 1.6 billion.
Nest is a status symbol,
Because being able to say you are able to afford a $250 thermostast gives you greater status bragging rights than getting a $700 phone or a $100k car!
Some high level exec wanted to use his iPhone 4S for work so he was able to tell Siri to manage his meetings and ordered it to happen.
Reason: When a bunch of high profile senators want to use their one iPhone to handle their email, or the president of the United States himself wants to use his iPad to check his email, they will come up with legal exceptions to allow it.
Sure, can happen with Android, once they forget about CarrierIQ.
My touch screen phone is my primary digital device. Period.
My computer has fallen back into niche uses like coding and writing extensively long multi-page articles.
The touch screen keyboard becomes second nature within a week of ownership. This holds true for all touch screen phones, Android, iPhone or WinPhone7.
At the end of the day, if a keyboard is so important, there are a a lot of cases that come with bluetooth keyboard. Just check this link out:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=bluetooth+keyboard+case+iphone&id=76D36CFA8438B11231CD36CAF645900802FD70E6&FORM=IQFRBA
I was under the impression they were only in position to claim money for phones with non-Qualcomm devices, since Qualcomm had that agreement already in place. Think the deal is about the chip that was used before they switched to Qualcomm.
Unless Apple turns things around and says "OK", I'll give you 2.25%... of the cost of the chip that violates the patents.
Here is my question on this: the infringement to the patent in question, from what has been reported, only applies to iPhones up to the 4, do not include the 4S because it uses a Qualcom chip instead of the previous brand Apple used. Qualcom is making chips that cellphone makers use to make phones. Since Qualcom licenses these patents from Motorola, the phone becomes immune.
This tells me that the issue should not be Apple, but the chip manufacturer. It is that chip maker that failed at licensing the patents, and then used them to make chips it then sold to Apple. Should this case not be directed at that chip manufacturer instead? It's very likely that manufacturer has other clients that are also using this unlicensed chips, so Apple cant be the only target without Motorola suddenly setting themselves up for unfair practices.
attempting to 'shield the screen from view of others' should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities. ...
Darnit! So thats why I failed the FBI test! I checked "C: is a Masturbator" on that one!
But this appears to be a good thing logically.
Help, I'm so confused, do I hate or like Google today?
They have vested interests in cloud computing.
There is no "good" or "evil", just greed, biases and stubbornness.
Not really true. Other than the geeks that know exactly what Android phone they want, or the apple fans that just want iPhones, and the extremely rare teen that wants a BlackBerry because that's what their friends have and they want to BBM with them, most people leave carrier stores with the phone that the salesman pushed down their throats, and that tends to be Android phones because the carrier gets more profit per unit with those, as they dont pay as high of a subsidy as they do with iPhones or even with BlackBerries.
I have heard many stories about salesmen getting a bonus for every android phone they sell, not sure if the bonus comes from the carrier pocket or the phone manufacturer's though.
So getting mad at bad working conditions is hypocrisy now? we used to call it "altruism".
When applied selectively, it's hypocrisy. Get mad about working conditions, as long as you are equally willing to research and be mad at the poor working conditions at the factories handling Samsung, HTC, and Sony's devices.
Oh but I forgot... no one calling into this made any research, not even bothered asking a chinese citizen about the working conditions in general. They just ate what they saw in some article and used it as ammo in a personal anti-specific-company agenda.
Each state should be entitled to pick their own lab to conduct the study on the scanners. Yes, that means 50 independent studies by local labs. More if we go counting DC and other territories.
Also, should they find any negative effects; any citizen of the state that has been exposed to the scanners should be entitled to an exponential sum for each exposure (since any additional exposure would not just additively increase cancer risks.)
THAT would be a responsible law to go for. But who am I kidding, the TSA now controls too much money, enough to lobby its way into doing anything they want.
From what I hear from people that know better: If you ever experienced American working conditions, you would never find Foxconn working conditions acceptable or even humane. However, if you have never left China, Foxconn may be the best chance at avoiding starvation. Other factories are far worse. In fact, the only reason we hear from Foxconn issues is because of its link to Apple. If we actually cared, we would be hearing about Aigo’s Shenzhen factory, or Samsung's OEM factory in Tianjin, that pays way less to their employees than Foxconn.
A recent episode of House actually did a good gaze on the topic, where the new philanthropist doctor is against a company move to Asia while the Asian doctor insist that is the best chance most people have of a better life relative to their current situation.
We have a choice (as a country not really as consumers) to stay out of China. That choice, though, will just result in forcing a worse life on those employees. But hey, better have them suicide or starve in a farm where only the family has to worry about the corpse!
Let's face it: the press does not care. The press just wants to print articles that get clicks to show ads, and they know Apple related news gets traffic, especially bad news.
Sorry for the rant but this Foxconn hypocrisy really gets to me.
Ah that Kotaku bs.
The game you link is simply litterally The Sims in an office setting.
Tiny Tower is Yenga with time management and money instead of physics.
Insanely different games that only a troll would dare compare.
Well, except for the fact that they didn't steal anything, you're right. Xerox gave it away. Willfully.
Not only that: a lot of what they "stole" was just design that Parc never managed to get to work (like the design for overlapping windows.) An apple dev (forget the name) killed himself "inventing" the code to make the overlapping windows work simply because he thought Parc had done it so it had to be possible.
Bull! We all knwo he paid hard stock for that chair, the box of copy paper was taken out of the garbage, the red stapler never existed and the GUI was traded for a used pack of chewing gum!
They did not get a ton of marketing over the ripoff, they got a ton of marketing over their action of mocking the rip-off.
Had they shut up and allowed the rip-off to just waltz by, they would had received no marketing at all.
They got good marketing in the end, yes. But only because of their own actions. Also note: Nimblebit didn’t really go out in a rant either. They just tossed a few jabs about how their 3 man studio is proud to know they are worth being copying by a large studio and how they look forward to being ripped-off in the future.
It is precisely their casual and passive approach that gave most execrators the sympathy that propelled this news across the gaming press.
You should inform yourself before commenting, please.
If you do a simple search, you will see Google has never had any trouble indexing public Twitter or Facebook information. Google simply wanted more than just the public information, they wanted the private data thats locked behind those profiles.
You should inform yourself before commenting.
The opposite: just in time to claim they were not in charge the day the company went bankrupt. They may do a W. Bush one here, where they blame the next guy in charge for the economic crisis their administration caused.
I can see it now, few months from now, RIM files for bankruptcy and they go: “We stepped down despite believing we had the right tactic to fix the company, because that’s what the investors wanted. They claimed they were able to do better. We let them try. They failed. Blame them for the death of RIM.”
Nothing wrong with that. Google grew to be the most popular search engine by understanding and implementing what is most acceptable to users of a search page.
The same way they understood that I wanted to see cluttered Google+ results in a sidebar for all my searches! :)
I mostly read feeds on the go. On my phone, at work computer, on my wife's computer, brothers computer, while in the can with the tablet, etc etc.
I need something that has a centralized backen to keep track of what I already read.
I am ready to quit their mail and have quit everything else. Only thing I still cant find a viable replacement for is Reader... ugh....
Unfortunately, the way they work, they already have a profile on you even if you dont sign up on their serivce. So many websites add that "useful" Like button, that servers as a tracking trojan, that it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook. They keep growing a profile on you even if you dont have an account. They'll just tie everything up the day you actually make an account to "check some friend's pictures" or something.
Not necessarily true, but I don't think they'll make much of a difference. They might affect Apple sales because some people will look at iMac (or, more likely, have one recommended) but then see this and think "hey, it looks similar enough, I don't care about that extra gloss -- I think I'll get this and save $500". Those people would have bought a Mac, but are either a bit too price sensitive or just not that in to Apple to care that it's not the same thing, and they're going to get a poorer experience as a result.
When a user has already the disposition to spend the extra amount of money on a mac, there are very little aesthetic replacements that will convince him to do otherwise. You are talking about someone that already decided to spend that money on an iMac. If he hasn't, he was never an Apple prospect to begin with, and was going to go to Best Buy to look at their all-in-one desktop offerings.
This is like saying that Toyota can introduce a cheap Ferrari knockoff tomorrow, and prospect Ferrari buyers forego the Ferrari in favor of the cheap knock off. Again: thinking about buying a pretty mac is not the same as having ever accepted to pay the price, meaning you were never a potential customer.
That in itself is fine, but it kind of tarnishes the Apple brand by association. That's why Apple are suing Samsung -- not because of rounded corners and whatnot, but because if you look at it superficially, it appears to be 'a cheaper version of the same thing'. Apple don't want to get lumped in with everyone else, that's way they create individual products and so carefully build and protect their brand.
Apple is going after Samsung not for just one copy. They are going after them because Samsung is overdoing it. They make some of their products not only look like Apple products, but they make the friging box and even the frigging charging cable look like the Apple equivalent!
I'm sure you must have seen this image before:
http://cdn.iphonehacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/applesamsungsimilar.jpg
Mind you, I think Apple is taking the case too far into too many product lines. Not all Samsung products are Apple knockoffs, but it does seem they have a department dedicated to produce just knockoffs.
This is typical Samsung behavior and they have done it over the years to any dominant force in the market. Apple is not the first one to sue them over it. The Samsung BlackJack was just a copy of a Blackberry (and got sued by RIM over it's name) and same goes for the Samsung SYNC vz Motorola RAZR. It's Samsung's DNA to just copy design. I am not too familiar with Android Phones (too many of them) but I'm sure you will find an EVO ripoff somewhere in the Samsung lineup.