Well then 5 years ago someone would have pointed you to all the state and municipal government services you must purchase by law and you would have been shocked.
They by profits still have the smartphone market. By sales they have a nice chunk regardless. As for 1.2mm whether it matter or not getting it is a technological marvel.
And they didn't invent the app store. Carriers had their own app stores first.
I agree. Apple made is successful. They created a vibrant software market. As for the App store, there was no app store at launch. iPhone 1 didn't support apps at all.
Who honestly makes phone purchase decisions by how thin it is?
We'll see. Size really really matters when I talk to people about phones. In any case that's innovation, possibly just not innovation you care about.
As for books again the question was volume of sales.
Apple has 68% market share. So they do have the best selling tablet, but it isn't like they are the only tablet selling well.
Take a look at where #2 is. They are the only tablet selling well after them you have the fire and then tablets scrapping off tiny niches. But that's not the point. The point is they invented the first successful tablet with applications. They taught everyone else how to do tablets.
Yeah the original comment was vague. I took it as a high percentage of all championships (big number). But if it just means a few times a year... absolutely.
Yep that has about 4 good ones. But that doesn't prove frequent, more or less all the time, which was the way back claim. Rather that list proves infrequent.
AC is right. The method differs and quite often the specifics differ. Samsung didn't argue prior art because Apple was careful and there wasn't always prior art.
On the other hand there have been some places where Apple's patents were limited because of successful prior art claims.
If this gets taken seriously enough at the UN, though, then exactly that sort of argument will need to take place. Might as well get the practice in.
Well we got practice in. The West beat back blaspheme laws starting in the early 16th century through about the 19th century. More or less I suspect it is the same argument: the state should not be vehicle for advancing the church because:
a) given a democratic state that perforce means the religion must be democratic (which conservatives strongly object to) b) the state can act as a check on the corruption of the church and visa versa (separation of powers) c) what can be done by your religion to another group can also be done to your religion... i.e. treat others... (liberal toleration) d) state enforcement encourages religious hypocrisy etc...
I don't think Salafist's are ready to debate this.
? Or is it merely working on a different definition of freedom than the ones you or I will understand?
I think it is a different definition of the good, not a different definition of freedom. They would see righteous freedom as freedom from interference to do God's will, but generalized freedom would be a negative.
What has Apple done since then literally other than copy heavily from those around them?
1) Create the app market concept and the first large scale smart phone software market. In many ways create the first fully regulated computer platform. 2) Drive up battery life on a touchscreen 3) Thin the form factor (current.76mm). In particular integrate the screen with the outer cover. 4) Create a bookstore which is thriving, first time successfully (i.e. large volume) on a phone 5) Create the first tablet that sells well
Understood but in context that's what he meant. And yes both are false statements. What Apple is doing, except in scope, public interest, amount of money.... is rather humdrum.
So what? How ca you claim that using such a part is innovative?
They are the first system to use the part. And at least for the rMBP they put the deal together. The part exists because of them. They didn't buy it off the shelf. I consider LG's role minimal and for all practical purposes Apple made the rMBP screen.
Yep. Except when your friend gets called to testify and indicates he used the competitors product as a prototype. Companies that invented it themselves can come forward with lots and lots of details about failed systems that led to what was the eventual successful version. Samsung's inability to do this during the crucial 07-08 period while they can do it fine before and after is one of the main reasons to suspect they are in fact guilty.
I get that. But that's precisely the sort of thing that Samsung didn't have to show when they were showing off prototypes. They never worked with animations in the GUI. There most certainly were other people like yourself working on this.
Though I give Apple credit for the years of work on Quartz / Quartz Extreme. That's what allowed for Core Image and Core Video which.... Today in 2012 it is easy. Apple got their in 2007 because of all the ground work they'd done between OSX 10.2-10.4 on graphics improvements that Steve Jobs had lying around.
To my mind the real innovation of iPhone was seeing how to knit:
a) Animation based interactions b) capacitive touchscreen c) high speed web rendering
together. All the pieces existed but Apple saw how to use them in combination. And that's really the problem that this triple is now fundamental to smart phones while at the same time Apple got there first and deserves some credit / money for that.
I'm searching and they seem infrequent. I'm seeing 3 from LA for the Lakers over the last dozen years and those seem to be mostly property damage. 1984 Detroit Tigers.
I don't know about crushing blasphemy. For most of Christian America a huge chunk of all the television and movies that come into their homes are hostile to their values. The books on sale in books stores, the internet, video games... I think Americans are better they have learned to understand their beliefs are their beliefs and not everyone else's.
They hit back mostly by saying nasty stuff about other people.
Germany found the Galaxy tab met their definition "impression of similarity". And Apple has won a lot of the counter suits. I don't know how many of the foreign cases have even gone the distance. But there are something like 12 countries already involved.
That's the argument we might have with a European. And there we could get into nuances of policy. For example the Scientology debate.
This Pakistan thing is just a basic belief that blaspheme is a universal norm and that preventing it is a goal most people agree with. It quite literally is a total failure to even understand what freedom means.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then 5 years ago someone would have pointed you to all the state and municipal government services you must purchase by law and you would have been shocked.
Well I don't bans on silly speech.
As for God making you believe in him on his own, see Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
They by profits still have the smartphone market. By sales they have a nice chunk regardless. As for 1.2mm whether it matter or not getting it is a technological marvel.
And they didn't invent the app store. Carriers had their own app stores first.
I agree. Apple made is successful. They created a vibrant software market. As for the App store, there was no app store at launch. iPhone 1 didn't support apps at all.
Who honestly makes phone purchase decisions by how thin it is?
We'll see. Size really really matters when I talk to people about phones. In any case that's innovation, possibly just not innovation you care about.
As for books again the question was volume of sales.
Apple has 68% market share. So they do have the best selling tablet, but it isn't like they are the only tablet selling well.
Take a look at where #2 is. They are the only tablet selling well after them you have the fire and then tablets scrapping off tiny niches. But that's not the point. The point is they invented the first successful tablet with applications. They taught everyone else how to do tablets.
Yeah the original comment was vague. I took it as a high percentage of all championships (big number). But if it just means a few times a year... absolutely.
I'd separate violence from rioting though.
Yep that has about 4 good ones. But that doesn't prove frequent, more or less all the time, which was the way back claim. Rather that list proves infrequent.
I agree they happen. The claim was they were frequent.
Those incidents aren't riots.
AC is right. The method differs and quite often the specifics differ. Samsung didn't argue prior art because Apple was careful and there wasn't always prior art.
On the other hand there have been some places where Apple's patents were limited because of successful prior art claims.
If this gets taken seriously enough at the UN, though, then exactly that sort of argument will need to take place. Might as well get the practice in.
Well we got practice in. The West beat back blaspheme laws starting in the early 16th century through about the 19th century. More or less I suspect it is the same argument: the state should not be vehicle for advancing the church because:
a) given a democratic state that perforce means the religion must be democratic (which conservatives strongly object to)
b) the state can act as a check on the corruption of the church and visa versa (separation of powers)
c) what can be done by your religion to another group can also be done to your religion... i.e. treat others... (liberal toleration)
d) state enforcement encourages religious hypocrisy
etc...
I don't think Salafist's are ready to debate this.
? Or is it merely working on a different definition of freedom than the ones you or I will understand?
I think it is a different definition of the good, not a different definition of freedom. They would see righteous freedom as freedom from interference to do God's will, but generalized freedom would be a negative.
Both Apple and Samsung have made major share grabs at this point for the last 5 and 3 years respectively.
Remember that Apple has specifically said that MeeGo, BBOS and Windows don't infringe. So it is all about stuff like pinch to zoom and skinning.
What has Apple done since then literally other than copy heavily from those around them?
1) Create the app market concept and the first large scale smart phone software market. In many ways create the first fully regulated computer platform. .76mm). In particular integrate the screen with the outer cover.
2) Drive up battery life on a touchscreen
3) Thin the form factor (current
4) Create a bookstore which is thriving, first time successfully (i.e. large volume) on a phone
5) Create the first tablet that sells well
Should I keep going?
Understood but in context that's what he meant. And yes both are false statements. What Apple is doing, except in scope, public interest, amount of money.... is rather humdrum.
Microsoft does offer indemnification.
So what? How ca you claim that using such a part is innovative?
They are the first system to use the part. And at least for the rMBP they put the deal together. The part exists because of them. They didn't buy it off the shelf. I consider LG's role minimal and for all practical purposes Apple made the rMBP screen.
Yep. Except when your friend gets called to testify and indicates he used the competitors product as a prototype. Companies that invented it themselves can come forward with lots and lots of details about failed systems that led to what was the eventual successful version. Samsung's inability to do this during the crucial 07-08 period while they can do it fine before and after is one of the main reasons to suspect they are in fact guilty.
Glad we agree on the the state making extra reasonable efforts towards accommodation.
Nothing in freedom of speech laws would enable persecution of religion.
Correct. Its the other way around. Freedom of speech laws wouldn't disable persecution of religion and that's the problem.
That's fine. But the GP was asking for a ban on proselytizing not enforcement of harassment calls.
I get that. But that's precisely the sort of thing that Samsung didn't have to show when they were showing off prototypes. They never worked with animations in the GUI. There most certainly were other people like yourself working on this.
Though I give Apple credit for the years of work on Quartz / Quartz Extreme. That's what allowed for Core Image and Core Video which .... Today in 2012 it is easy. Apple got their in 2007 because of all the ground work they'd done between OSX 10.2-10.4 on graphics improvements that Steve Jobs had lying around.
To my mind the real innovation of iPhone was seeing how to knit:
a) Animation based interactions
b) capacitive touchscreen
c) high speed web rendering
together. All the pieces existed but Apple saw how to use them in combination. And that's really the problem that this triple is now fundamental to smart phones while at the same time Apple got there first and deserves some credit / money for that.
I'm searching and they seem infrequent. I'm seeing 3 from LA for the Lakers over the last dozen years and those seem to be mostly property damage. 1984 Detroit Tigers.
I don't know about crushing blasphemy. For most of Christian America a huge chunk of all the television and movies that come into their homes are hostile to their values. The books on sale in books stores, the internet, video games... I think Americans are better they have learned to understand their beliefs are their beliefs and not everyone else's.
They hit back mostly by saying nasty stuff about other people.
Germany found the Galaxy tab met their definition "impression of similarity". And Apple has won a lot of the counter suits. I don't know how many of the foreign cases have even gone the distance. But there are something like 12 countries already involved.
By religious intolerance they generally meant state sponsored religious persecutions. Not individuals saying mean stuff.
The USA has strong religious tolerance and strong freedom of expression laws.
That's the argument we might have with a European. And there we could get into nuances of policy. For example the Scientology debate.
This Pakistan thing is just a basic belief that blaspheme is a universal norm and that preventing it is a goal most people agree with. It quite literally is a total failure to even understand what freedom means.