Here's the thing though: Apple licenses all the stuff they use. Even stuff like Coverflow which would've been trivial for Apple to re-implement but they bought the company instead. Their competition is let's say less restrictive in their behavior. Although Google seems to have recently woken up and decided that this obeying these patent laws might actually be important, hence their scramble to acquire some.
The change in attitude is nicely illustrated in the Galaxy Nexus announcement (emphasis mine) :
“The Galaxy Nexus smartphone, the first handset built using a new version of the Android system called “ice cream sandwich,” is designed to bypass potential legal attacks from Apple Inc., the mobile chief of Samsung Electronics Co. said. Now we will avoid everything we can and take patents very seriously,” Shin told reporters Tuesday on the eve of the Galaxy Nexus launch.
"The Macintosh User Interface wasn't designed all at once; it was actually the result of almost five years of experimentation and development at Apple, starting with graphics routines that Bill Atkinson began writing for Lisa in late 1978. Like any evolutionary process, there were lots of false starts and blind alleys along the way. It's a shame that these tend to be lost to history, since there is a lot that we can learn from them."
"The rightmost picture shows the final soft-key based UI, which is about to change radically...into a mouse/windows based user interface. This is obviously the biggest single jump in the entire set of photographs, and the place where I most wish that Bill had dated them. It's tempting to say that the change was caused by the famous Xerox PARC visit, which took place in mid-December 1979, but Bill thinks that the windows predated that, although he can't say for sure. "
Relevant : "After Jobs returned from PARC, he met with a man named Dean Hovey, who was one of the founders of the industrial-design firm that would become known as IDEO. “Jobs went to Xerox PARC on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and I saw him on the Friday afternoon,” Hovey recalled. “I had a series of ideas that I wanted to bounce off him, and I barely got two words out of my mouth when he said, ‘No, no, no, you’ve got to do a mouse.’ I was, like, ‘What’s a mouse?’ I didn’t have a clue. So he explains it, and he says, ‘You know, [the Xerox mouse] is a mouse that cost three hundred dollars to build and it breaks within two weeks. Here’s your design spec: Our mouse needs to be manufacturable for less than fifteen bucks. It needs to not fail for a couple of years, and I want to be able to use it on Formica and my bluejeans.'"
"At $16,000 for the Star workstation and an additional $50,000 to $100,000 for the complete system Xerox only sold about 25,000 units."
And turn it into first the $9,995 Lisa and then into the $2,495 mac. You think it's easy cramming $100.000 worth of technology into a $2,495 machine ? Those guys were friggin' geniuses. They may have gotten the general idea of which way computers were headed from Xerox (who by the way gave plenty of presentations to other companies before Apple and none of them recognized the value of what they saw there) and redeveloped and adapted this stuff for the puny home computers.
You can follow the whole development through a series of screenshots taken during coding here on flolklore.org. To appreciate the complexity of the task think about how long it took Microsoft to catch up with Apple even after they were given Macs by Apple to develop their software on.
Second, Woz is a great guy and engineer but after the Apple 2 his time had passed. I loved the Amiga at the time who were doing sort of the same thing as Woz with clever designs based around custom chips, but that was a dead end. The company started with Woz' technical prowess but it would've died then and there without Job's intuition about where computing was going next : easy to use interfaces, nicely designed boxes and business savvy.
Applying common sense helps, that's the "reasonably foresee" part. When you have a situation like this in your restaurant : "Half of the 20 people who took part in the challenge dropped out after witnessing the first 10 diners vomiting, collapsing, sweating and panting." you likely did not entirely think it through.
You are not allowed to endanger the lives of others by your actions or carelessness. The fact that the peppers are offered on by a restaurant may provide the illusion of safety where there is none. If you have a patron sustaining injury by something you have served him when you could reasonably foresee the damage done than you may be liable.
Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits.
You make it sound like a deliberate strategy. However IBM's PC's were just as closed. When clone manufacturers sprang up they were promply sued and forced to reverse engineer the BIOS. This coupled with Microsoft's cunning decision to retain the right to license MSDOS to others evantually led to the "PC Compatible." So it was more like a comedy of errors on IBM's part than any sort of natural evolution or strategy that created the PC.
But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"
It's a talking point. For all the talk of shills and astroturfers slashdotters do all the time, they sure are quick to echo mindless nonsense planted by them if it suits their purpose.
It's worth mentioning that Apple's own iCloud also has a subset of Prey's features like geolocation, remote locking/wiping and sending a message. Doesn't support taking a picture or using the webcam though.
So a young playwrite that has his work stolen is not protected by the law, but a corporation that has produced more flops than successes that has a prototype that it released into the wild stolen is entitled to billions?
And people call the 99% crazy...
Did you read what I wrote at all ? The playwright (sic) in your scenario isn't protected because the value of his work is undetermined (and probably low, because he is starving after all.) Or rather he is protected but you wouldn't assign people to specifically look for the work because that would be mispriorization on the police's part. Turn it around: you wouldn't look for plans for some generic product lost by an obscure corporation if they are of little to no value, you would look for a screen play lost by an author who, though unknown to the large public, has a deal lined up for the work which is worth millions.
TL;DR: undetermined worth justifies less allocation of limited resources than known large worth.
Exactly, like Newtonian physics wasn't "wrong" at the time because it explained what people could observe but couldn't explain everything we could see once we could look further into space. Maybe this is us looking further.
There is a difference between intervention and corruption.
An investigation is fine. Violating the rights of the Gizmodo editor in such a cavalier way with no remorse or accountability only furthers the public's disillusionment with law enforcement as being their to truly serve and protect The People.
There was an obvious need for an investigation, that the police botched it is their problem. And yours if you're a US citizen.
The problem is not the investigations. It is the actions of the investigators.
I agree. I'm not commenting on the specifics of how the investigation was run, rather I'm reacting to the people who feel Apple got special treatment or feel this shouldn't have been investigated at all.
So the starving artist who had his laptop stolen can claim that he's out billions too because it was his lifes work and it would have sold billions?
Come on. It's a friggin tort. Proof of damages or it didn't happen.
-Rick
The worth of a manuscript of a starving artist is unclear, the worth of a prototype work by the worlds largest public company of a product that sells in the millions is indisputable. It is called industrial espionage.
"Information can make the difference between success and failure; if a trade secret is stolen, the competitive playing field is leveled or even tipped in favor of a competitor. Although a lot of information-gathering is accomplished legally through competitive intelligence, at times corporations feel the best way to get information is to take it. Economic or industrial espionage is a threat to any business whose livelihood depends on information."
How much did Gizmodo make in extra revenue due to traffic to their site ? How much was the advertising worth when their pictures with their watermark were plastered all over the web and traditional media ? How much did Apple lose because their hand was tipped to their competitors allowing them to more quickly react ?
A billion is overdoing it but maybe a couple of hundred thousand, which is quite enough to warrant police intervention.
Its fun if you've got the time. Talk to the other people in line, show each other great apps, etc. Of course you look like a saddo to passersby, but geeks should be used to that:-)
Can't argue with the earnings, they are doing well financially. But those dollars are coming from a single product, 97% of its revenue is from advertising. Think about it: 97% from a single source, one that's sensitive to economic slowdowns too.
Also about those 40 million users for Google+ mentioned in the article, a counterpoint :
"The data shows that, on the day of its public debut, Google+ traffic skyrocketed to peak levels. But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state. It would appear that although high levels of publicity were able to draw new traffic to Google+, few of them saw reason to stay."
You can say "Joanne Moore is my mother" to Siri once. Later, saying "Text Mom that I'll be late for dinner", and Siri remembers mom = Joanne Moore, or whoever.
You have to tell it that info ? I assumed it got that from the related field in the address book on he mac side.
Slashdot Mirror
The Apple/Samsung kerfuffle isn't about rounded corners, that's just a talking point designed for ridicule without arguments.
Here's the thing though: Apple licenses all the stuff they use. Even stuff like Coverflow which would've been trivial for Apple to re-implement but they bought the company instead. Their competition is let's say less restrictive in their behavior. Although Google seems to have recently woken up and decided that this obeying these patent laws might actually be important, hence their scramble to acquire some.
The change in attitude is nicely illustrated in the Galaxy Nexus announcement (emphasis mine) :
“The Galaxy Nexus smartphone, the first handset built using a new version of the Android system called “ice cream sandwich,” is designed to bypass potential legal attacks from Apple Inc., the mobile chief of Samsung Electronics Co. said. Now we will avoid everything we can and take patents very seriously,” Shin told reporters Tuesday on the eve of the Galaxy Nexus launch.
Yes :
"The Macintosh User Interface wasn't designed all at once; it was actually the result of almost five years of experimentation and development at Apple, starting with graphics routines that Bill Atkinson began writing for Lisa in late 1978. Like any evolutionary process, there were lots of false starts and blind alleys along the way. It's a shame that these tend to be lost to history, since there is a lot that we can learn from them."
"The rightmost picture shows the final soft-key based UI, which is about to change radically ...into a mouse/windows based user interface. This is obviously the biggest single jump in the entire set of photographs, and the place where I most wish that Bill had dated them. It's tempting to say that the change was caused by the famous Xerox PARC visit, which took place in mid-December 1979, but Bill thinks that the windows predated that, although he can't say for sure. "
Screenshots on folklore.org
Relevant : "After Jobs returned from PARC, he met with a man named Dean Hovey, who was one of the founders of the industrial-design firm that would become known as IDEO. “Jobs went to Xerox PARC on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and I saw him on the Friday afternoon,” Hovey recalled. “I had a series of ideas that I wanted to bounce off him, and I barely got two words out of my mouth when he said, ‘No, no, no, you’ve got to do a mouse.’ I was, like, ‘What’s a mouse?’ I didn’t have a clue. So he explains it, and he says, ‘You know, [the Xerox mouse] is a mouse that cost three hundred dollars to build and it breaks within two weeks. Here’s your design spec: Our mouse needs to be manufacturable for less than fifteen bucks. It needs to not fail for a couple of years, and I want to be able to use it on Formica and my bluejeans.'"
10 years after the fact, no gold-digging there I'm sure (!)
First off what they did was take this :
"At $16,000 for the Star workstation and an additional $50,000 to $100,000 for the complete system Xerox only sold about 25,000 units."
And turn it into first the $9,995 Lisa and then into the $2,495 mac. You think it's easy cramming $100.000 worth of technology into a $2,495 machine ? Those guys were friggin' geniuses. They may have gotten the general idea of which way computers were headed from Xerox (who by the way gave plenty of presentations to other companies before Apple and none of them recognized the value of what they saw there) and redeveloped and adapted this stuff for the puny home computers.
You can follow the whole development through a series of screenshots taken during coding here on flolklore.org. To appreciate the complexity of the task think about how long it took Microsoft to catch up with Apple even after they were given Macs by Apple to develop their software on.
Second, Woz is a great guy and engineer but after the Apple 2 his time had passed. I loved the Amiga at the time who were doing sort of the same thing as Woz with clever designs based around custom chips, but that was a dead end. The company started with Woz' technical prowess but it would've died then and there without Job's intuition about where computing was going next : easy to use interfaces, nicely designed boxes and business savvy.
Sure, no problem. What is the current .beat?
Anybody old enough to remember Swatch Internet Time?
Hey who are you calling old ? I bet you can still put a Beat clock applet next to your snazzy homepage hit counter if you want.
I like to sweat and pant as much as the next guy, not when I'm eating though :-)
Probably a good call on the restaurant owner faking/exagerating it.
Applying common sense helps, that's the "reasonably foresee" part. When you have a situation like this in your restaurant : "Half of the 20 people who took part in the challenge dropped out after witnessing the first 10 diners vomiting, collapsing, sweating and panting." you likely did not entirely think it through.
You are not allowed to endanger the lives of others by your actions or carelessness. The fact that the peppers are offered on by a restaurant may provide the illusion of safety where there is none. If you have a patron sustaining injury by something you have served him when you could reasonably foresee the damage done than you may be liable.
Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits.
You make it sound like a deliberate strategy. However IBM's PC's were just as closed. When clone manufacturers sprang up they were promply sued and forced to reverse engineer the BIOS. This coupled with Microsoft's cunning decision to retain the right to license MSDOS to others evantually led to the "PC Compatible." So it was more like a comedy of errors on IBM's part than any sort of natural evolution or strategy that created the PC.
But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"
It's a talking point. For all the talk of shills and astroturfers slashdotters do all the time, they sure are quick to echo mindless nonsense planted by them if it suits their purpose.
It's worth mentioning that Apple's own iCloud also has a subset of Prey's features like geolocation, remote locking/wiping and sending a message. Doesn't support taking a picture or using the webcam though.
The playwright (sic)
Goddamn autocorrect corrected the word before my (sic).
So a young playwrite that has his work stolen is not protected by the law, but a corporation that has produced more flops than successes that has a prototype that it released into the wild stolen is entitled to billions?
And people call the 99% crazy...
Did you read what I wrote at all ? The playwright (sic) in your scenario isn't protected because the value of his work is undetermined (and probably low, because he is starving after all.) Or rather he is protected but you wouldn't assign people to specifically look for the work because that would be mispriorization on the police's part. Turn it around: you wouldn't look for plans for some generic product lost by an obscure corporation if they are of little to no value, you would look for a screen play lost by an author who, though unknown to the large public, has a deal lined up for the work which is worth millions.
TL;DR: undetermined worth justifies less allocation of limited resources than known large worth.
Exactly, like Newtonian physics wasn't "wrong" at the time because it explained what people could observe but couldn't explain everything we could see once we could look further into space. Maybe this is us looking further.
No no no, in-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This announcement is not just famous, it's IN-famous.
There is a difference between intervention and corruption.
An investigation is fine. Violating the rights of the Gizmodo editor in such a cavalier way with no remorse or accountability only furthers the public's disillusionment with law enforcement as being their to truly serve and protect The People.
There was an obvious need for an investigation, that the police botched it is their problem. And yours if you're a US citizen.
The problem is not the investigations. It is the actions of the investigators.
I agree. I'm not commenting on the specifics of how the investigation was run, rather I'm reacting to the people who feel Apple got special treatment or feel this shouldn't have been investigated at all.
So the starving artist who had his laptop stolen can claim that he's out billions too because it was his lifes work and it would have sold billions?
Come on. It's a friggin tort. Proof of damages or it didn't happen.
-Rick
The worth of a manuscript of a starving artist is unclear, the worth of a prototype work by the worlds largest public company of a product that sells in the millions is indisputable. It is called industrial espionage.
"Information can make the difference between success and failure; if a trade secret is stolen, the competitive playing field is leveled or even tipped in favor of a competitor. Although a lot of information-gathering is accomplished legally through competitive intelligence, at times corporations feel the best way to get information is to take it. Economic or industrial espionage is a threat to any business whose livelihood depends on information."
How much did Gizmodo make in extra revenue due to traffic to their site ? How much was the advertising worth when their pictures with their watermark were plastered all over the web and traditional media ? How much did Apple lose because their hand was tipped to their competitors allowing them to more quickly react ?
A billion is overdoing it but maybe a couple of hundred thousand, which is quite enough to warrant police intervention.
In that second case no prototype was ever recovered. All there was was a lot of speculation and insinuations.
Looks like the author has only done some superficial research on some aspects.
Is Apple abandoning the professional user ?
Are they dumbing down their products ?
Does Pc"Pro" desperately need your clicks ?
Find out inside !
Its fun if you've got the time. Talk to the other people in line, show each other great apps, etc. Of course you look like a saddo to passersby, but geeks should be used to that :-)
Can't argue with the earnings, they are doing well financially. But those dollars are coming from a single product, 97% of its revenue is from advertising. Think about it: 97% from a single source, one that's sensitive to economic slowdowns too.
Also about those 40 million users for Google+ mentioned in the article, a counterpoint :
"The data shows that, on the day of its public debut, Google+ traffic skyrocketed to peak levels. But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state. It would appear that although high levels of publicity were able to draw new traffic to Google+, few of them saw reason to stay."
You can say "Joanne Moore is my mother" to Siri once. Later, saying "Text Mom that I'll be late for dinner", and Siri remembers mom = Joanne Moore, or whoever.
You have to tell it that info ? I assumed it got that from the related field in the address book on he mac side.