It's crippled and horribly over priced. Google didn't think this one out. Yes being made in the USA is cool and all but that doesn't justify three times the price over something like the Roku.
If it's priced anything like the Nexus 7 then it will be a complete non-starter for anyone in Australia. Apple are known for region-specific markups, for example the original iPad $499 vs $629 (a 21% markup) and the new iPad is much better at $499 vs $549 (only a 10% markup) but the Nexus 7 is $199 in the US and $299 in AU, that's a 50% markup! If that trend extends to the Nexus Q it makes an already overpriced device and exorbitantly overpriced device! You're 3/4 of the way to a Mac Mini or even closer to a Dell Zinio! Already the Nexus Q is priced very similar to the Samsung Chromebox, load an intel build of Android onto one of those and you're probably better off.
no, obviously you claim to know - or understand - something but are either unwilling or unable to explain it, i'd assume the latter given you've taken so much time to reply to all of my posts, and continue to do so.
I see you actually didn't believe the 'admitting defeat' part of your post, otherwise you wouldn't have responded, but of course you did. Now can you actually answer the questions in the post? or not? I would assume not, if all you can do is point to the definition of a design patent then you clearly don't understand the concept well enough to be able to answer questions regarding it.
Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.
The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.
Thanks for admitting defeat.
If that's what you so desperately need to get through the day then you can take it as that.
And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."
So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?
No i just asked a question which falls within the context of the discussion. It's clearly not an 'answer' because no question was even asked.
No, that's just the definition of a design patent.
And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?
What an idiotic strawman comment, i never said or implied anything of the sort.
Are the differences between the 2 devices pictured here not immediately obvious to you? Or here? Or here?
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?
I don't know about that, Voice Control on the iphone 4 seems to work perfectly well for me, even going beyond dialing to using the music playing features.
Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.
But then you take a quick look at this or this or this and then you realise just how different they are. Yes it's possible to make them look very similar if you set up the screen just right and look at it from the right angle but obviously you can see why Samsung opposes this litigation.
Of course there are, because there are a myriad of differences but he has picked one and said that if that one element were changed all would be fine, so is that change the only one that matters? If so then why? And if not then what impact do others have? If you look at it from the side or the back do they look the same to you? What about from the front? (and make sure you look at the devices from the front, not the image that Apple's lawyers created that falsified the dimensions of the samsung tablet to make them the same size and aspect ratio)
and it's quite simple
Obviously not, if it were 'quite simple' we wouldn't have 19 lawsuits in 12 courts in 10 countries over this issue.
and think that you can invalidate it by pointing out that tablets are not new, or that other things have round corners.
The reason for that is that Apple is cherry picking similarities and ignoring key differences, like this or this or this, that last one even Apple so obvious that they went to the trouble of photoshopping it to make them the same size and aspect ratio. I just think it's a waste of time, no one who wants an Apple iPad is going to buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab just because they look similar from a certain angle, if they were infringing on the trademark then that is a different story though.
Well whilst you can point to the similarities there are also a lot of substantial differences and one of the key ones was so clear that Apple's lawyers even photoshopped it to eliminate it.
Um, yes, I believe you did. You replied to my comment about VMs with a comment about dual-booting. Which implies that they have something significant to do with one another.
And from that you conclude that it wasn't tried due to customer demand?
Well if you believe otherwise then show me there was demand, oh but you can't because there wasn't any. OEMs tried a new product and it turns out no-one wanted it, there was no demand for it. Come on, show me some proof to back your assertions...but you can't because you're just imagining it.
Dual-booting is not the same as running a different OS in a VM.
And I never implied it was.
But to be clear: I wasn't trying to say that the VMs themselves were necessarily crap, but a decade ago, they were so slow on most hardware as to be almost unusable.
Yes, back then we didn't have as much 'disposable computing power'.
And I agree that there was not enough customer demand in the long run for OEM Ubuntu... but things change. For one thing, it was not long after that time that Gnome and KDE both changed the user interfaces in ways that were almost universally despised.
But this is about the "the lack of software freedom", and with those free OSes you always had alternatives for the DM. If - as you posit - the reason for them failing was change to the DM (or really any part of the system) then the lack of freedom makes no difference anyway, ipso facto there was never any demand for such a thing.
So yes, I still assert that the OEMs supplied Ubuntu machines in response to customer demand.
Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.
Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
That's obviously just due to simplification of the device to limit it to simple basic tasks. Extend that capability to functionality required in modern education systems and you end up with an inefficient and far less productive device.
smaller, easier to store, portable can be moved to a more convenient location.
So is my phone, but replacing all laptops with phones for that reason is only slightly more idiotic than doing the same with tablets. Still no advantage to tablets over laptops to outweigh the reduction in functionality.
Balls. Several of the vendors started offering Ubuntu because of customer demand.
Rubbish, wonder why big box manufacturers don't anymore? Because no-one wanted them, so you're wrong! If people wanted them they'd be popular, but they aren't, because people don't want them, even the failure of Vista didn't make people want them!
They didn't do it just because they felt like it.
Lots of manufacturers tried and failed to do that because no-one wanted them.
Again, balls. VMs were around a decade ago, but they didn't work worth a shit.
Firstly they've been workable for many many years, and secondly i was referring to the fact that you have had the choice of dual booting and not having to be constrained to either-or.
That was when people started demanding alternate OSes on their commercial purchases.
The only thing people were demanding was XP instead of Vista, not free OSes.
It isn't that one or another OS had taken over, it's that there are lots more choices, and today it's a multiple-choice question, it's no longer either-or.
While I've watched computers go from useless technology, foisted on schools, to useful technology, sought by schools
But the potential was obvious, it's not as though anyone was saying 'well we already have devices upon which we can do everything these computers do'. The issue here is that tablets don't offer any great benefit we don't already have with laptops, if anything they are less productive.
Some day kids and teachers will be using these in education, while PCs will be relics of the past.
Why? By pretty much all productivity measures a tablet is worse than a laptop.
It sounds to me you're just saying Bill Gates is wrong because he's been wrong before.
The whole Vista thing was an issue because of major changes to both the security and driver model, it took time to get past that but it was never going to lose that stigma, Windows 7 isn't a whole lot different but Vista was always going to fail. And even with that people didn't flock to free OSes, the lack of software freedom still isn't biting anyone.
Don't worry. We'll get our chance to ridicule Mac users when Apple does something stupid with OS X. The lack of software freedom will bite them eventually.
LOL! Yeah you just keep thinking that, it's been well over 2 decades and even the significantly more locked down Microsoft Windows still hasn't done anything that has caused its users to abandon it in favor of free OSes. If through all that unloved Microsoft has done isn't biting anyone in the ass hard enough to change then I don't see it happening to Apple either. You can keep trumpeting software freedom and that the YOTLD is coming, but i'm certainly not seeing evidence of change, in fact the popularity of iOS suggests the opposite is true.
Slashdot Mirror
It's crippled and horribly over priced. Google didn't think this one out. Yes being made in the USA is cool and all but that doesn't justify three times the price over something like the Roku.
If it's priced anything like the Nexus 7 then it will be a complete non-starter for anyone in Australia. Apple are known for region-specific markups, for example the original iPad $499 vs $629 (a 21% markup) and the new iPad is much better at $499 vs $549 (only a 10% markup) but the Nexus 7 is $199 in the US and $299 in AU, that's a 50% markup! If that trend extends to the Nexus Q it makes an already overpriced device and exorbitantly overpriced device! You're 3/4 of the way to a Mac Mini or even closer to a Dell Zinio!
Already the Nexus Q is priced very similar to the Samsung Chromebox, load an intel build of Android onto one of those and you're probably better off.
no, obviously you claim to know - or understand - something but are either unwilling or unable to explain it, i'd assume the latter given you've taken so much time to reply to all of my posts, and continue to do so.
yes, there was no question, what i wrote was not an answer.
No, you answered
Lol! i didn't 'answer' anything you moron! Haha!
I see you actually didn't believe the 'admitting defeat' part of your post, otherwise you wouldn't have responded, but of course you did. Now can you actually answer the questions in the post? or not? I would assume not, if all you can do is point to the definition of a design patent then you clearly don't understand the concept well enough to be able to answer questions regarding it.
Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.
The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.
Thanks for admitting defeat.
If that's what you so desperately need to get through the day then you can take it as that.
And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."
So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?
No i just asked a question which falls within the context of the discussion. It's clearly not an 'answer' because no question was even asked.
That's clear enough.
No, that's just the definition of a design patent.
And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?
What an idiotic strawman comment, i never said or implied anything of the sort.
Are the differences between the 2 devices pictured here not immediately obvious to you? Or here? Or here?
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?
I don't know about that, Voice Control on the iphone 4 seems to work perfectly well for me, even going beyond dialing to using the music playing features.
Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.
But then you take a quick look at this or this or this and then you realise just how different they are. Yes it's possible to make them look very similar if you set up the screen just right and look at it from the right angle but obviously you can see why Samsung opposes this litigation.
There are a lot of what-ifs that you have
Of course there are, because there are a myriad of differences but he has picked one and said that if that one element were changed all would be fine, so is that change the only one that matters? If so then why? And if not then what impact do others have? If you look at it from the side or the back do they look the same to you? What about from the front? (and make sure you look at the devices from the front, not the image that Apple's lawyers created that falsified the dimensions of the samsung tablet to make them the same size and aspect ratio)
and it's quite simple
Obviously not, if it were 'quite simple' we wouldn't have 19 lawsuits in 12 courts in 10 countries over this issue.
and think that you can invalidate it by pointing out that tablets are not new, or that other things have round corners.
The reason for that is that Apple is cherry picking similarities and ignoring key differences, like this or this or this, that last one even Apple so obvious that they went to the trouble of photoshopping it to make them the same size and aspect ratio.
I just think it's a waste of time, no one who wants an Apple iPad is going to buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab just because they look similar from a certain angle, if they were infringing on the trademark then that is a different story though.
Well whilst you can point to the similarities there are also a lot of substantial differences and one of the key ones was so clear that Apple's lawyers even photoshopped it to eliminate it.
Um, yes, I believe you did. You replied to my comment about VMs with a comment about dual-booting. Which implies that they have something significant to do with one another.
Wrong, I replied to:
It isn't that one or another OS had taken over, it's that there are lots more choices, and today it's a multiple-choice question, it's no longer either-or.
It was clearly quoted in the post, so you fail.
Well, no shit. That is exactly what I stated. Thanks for agreeing with me.
The hint was with the first word 'yes', in case you missed it.
What??? Your link has nothing to do with "software freedom". You just referred back to things that we have already discussed.
Wrong, read the post moron it quite clearly states The lack of software freedom will bite them eventually., which is what i responded to, so you fail again idiot.
And from that you conclude that it wasn't tried due to customer demand?
Well if you believe otherwise then show me there was demand, oh but you can't because there wasn't any. OEMs tried a new product and it turns out no-one wanted it, there was no demand for it. Come on, show me some proof to back your assertions...but you can't because you're just imagining it.
Dual-booting is not the same as running a different OS in a VM.
And I never implied it was.
But to be clear: I wasn't trying to say that the VMs themselves were necessarily crap, but a decade ago, they were so slow on most hardware as to be almost unusable.
Yes, back then we didn't have as much 'disposable computing power'.
And I agree that there was not enough customer demand in the long run for OEM Ubuntu... but things change. For one thing, it was not long after that time that Gnome and KDE both changed the user interfaces in ways that were almost universally despised.
But this is about the "the lack of software freedom", and with those free OSes you always had alternatives for the DM. If - as you posit - the reason for them failing was change to the DM (or really any part of the system) then the lack of freedom makes no difference anyway, ipso facto there was never any demand for such a thing.
So yes, I still assert that the OEMs supplied Ubuntu machines in response to customer demand.
Based on what? They never sold well.
Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.
Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
One advantage tablets have over laptops is ease of use for people who aren't familiar with computers.
That's obviously just due to simplification of the device to limit it to simple basic tasks. Extend that capability to functionality required in modern education systems and you end up with an inefficient and far less productive device.
smaller, easier to store, portable can be moved to a more convenient location.
So is my phone, but replacing all laptops with phones for that reason is only slightly more idiotic than doing the same with tablets. Still no advantage to tablets over laptops to outweigh the reduction in functionality.
Balls. Several of the vendors started offering Ubuntu because of customer demand.
Rubbish, wonder why big box manufacturers don't anymore? Because no-one wanted them, so you're wrong! If people wanted them they'd be popular, but they aren't, because people don't want them, even the failure of Vista didn't make people want them!
They didn't do it just because they felt like it.
Lots of manufacturers tried and failed to do that because no-one wanted them.
Again, balls. VMs were around a decade ago, but they didn't work worth a shit.
Firstly they've been workable for many many years, and secondly i was referring to the fact that you have had the choice of dual booting and not having to be constrained to either-or.
Uh, yeah, they kinda did.
hrm no they didn't.
That was when people started demanding alternate OSes on their commercial purchases.
The only thing people were demanding was XP instead of Vista, not free OSes.
It isn't that one or another OS had taken over, it's that there are lots more choices, and today it's a multiple-choice question, it's no longer either-or.
It's been like that for well over a decade.
While I've watched computers go from useless technology, foisted on schools, to useful technology, sought by schools
But the potential was obvious, it's not as though anyone was saying 'well we already have devices upon which we can do everything these computers do'. The issue here is that tablets don't offer any great benefit we don't already have with laptops, if anything they are less productive.
Some day kids and teachers will be using these in education, while PCs will be relics of the past.
Why? By pretty much all productivity measures a tablet is worse than a laptop.
It sounds to me you're just saying Bill Gates is wrong because he's been wrong before.
Microsoft did one such major screwup with Vista.
The whole Vista thing was an issue because of major changes to both the security and driver model, it took time to get past that but it was never going to lose that stigma, Windows 7 isn't a whole lot different but Vista was always going to fail. And even with that people didn't flock to free OSes, the lack of software freedom still isn't biting anyone.
Don't worry. We'll get our chance to ridicule Mac users when Apple does something stupid with OS X. The lack of software freedom will bite them eventually.
LOL! Yeah you just keep thinking that, it's been well over 2 decades and even the significantly more locked down Microsoft Windows still hasn't done anything that has caused its users to abandon it in favor of free OSes. If through all that unloved Microsoft has done isn't biting anyone in the ass hard enough to change then I don't see it happening to Apple either.
You can keep trumpeting software freedom and that the YOTLD is coming, but i'm certainly not seeing evidence of change, in fact the popularity of iOS suggests the opposite is true.