Much like how the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad would all fail when competing against more open products?
Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.
I can see a future where it becomes more difficult to shoot yourself in the foot. But removing the option to install software that isn't from the App Store? get fucking real.
FWIW, I largely agree it's not that bad, but let's be frank here though, some freedoms have taken a bloody nose in the last few decades.
The fact that we can bitch about our Government and not have to worry about a Mubarak or a Gaddafi style crackdown means that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using hyperbole like we do.
In context with day to day ordinary use, Jobs is one hundred percent correct. Buttons suck.
With gaming? Different story.
An official controller stack via bluetooth or dock connector(or both) would really create an actual threat to nintendo and sony in the handheld field. Playing games like Street Fighter and Sonic on the iPhone kind of blew compared to playing it on the PS3 or 360(Sonic 4 ep 1 was a full 5 bucks cheaper on the iPhone; making it worth it for me; plus it was portable).
The question this is all dancing around is, will this kill traditional gaming platforms?
Short answer is no.
Long answer is no, and I consider your argument ignorant and misinformed.
Nintendo and Sony made roughly the same gains they otherwise would have in the market. Apple being around isn't going to stop Hideo Kojima from putting out Metal Gear on the PSP or Nintendo from putting out Pokemon on the DS.
What Apple IS doing is expanding the market place for mobile devices, they're making the pie bigger and taking that expanded pie away. There's some pull over, but, the types who were crazy for portable gaming before aren't going to stop because they have an iPhone or a Droid somethingoranother.
What is happening is that those who wouldn't have normally been gaming on the go, or even gaming for that matter, are now gaming on their phones in their down time. A few levels of angry birds before bed, a sudoku while waiting at the dentist, etc. I don't think that Nintendo largely has anything to worry about. They're digital crack dealers and just because someone, say Apple, comes by offering digital heroin doesn't mean that their bottom line is compromised.
are android and ios Office and Outlook integration implementations tight enough to render BB's edge in those fields irrelevant? I know I can view docx, xlsx, and a few other formats on my iOS devices, but I imagined BB would have some sort of edge there. I also thought that BES would have an edge over vanilla Exchange connections over SSL. Huh.
Actually, none of the evidence shows that this was a console based hack.
Unfortunately not a lot of information came out, but the bit of information that Sony has released has nearly confirmed that this wasn't a console based hack.
What's wrong with advocating for a moderate solution where in large scale concepts and innovations like entirely new algorithms to perform tasks related to commercial grade software would be protected, but, also disallow abuse by those who would make it their entire business model to abuse the system?
But mechanical patents fall into the same category. Aren't all mechanical patents at it's heart, physics, which is any number of different mathematical fields? What about chemical patents?
But you're right that the danger of software patents, and as I stated above, well, any sort of patent is that our system isn't designed to handle our modern, robust(well, relative compared to our patent law) field of science and math.
The problem is our patent system but the solution isn't to throw it out and go entirely with out some sort of protection of IP in the market place. Nor is it what we've got now. Science and technology have jumped way ahead of our patent system, and if we started to figure out what was fair, we're probably not going to find a really adequate solution, even if we include the possibility of just throwing the whole system out.
I think the least worst solution would have to incorporate the idea that innovations must be protected, but, those protections must be limited.
Last thing I'd want to do is come up with some whizbang unpatented compression technique, only to find out some MegaMondoCorp has turned it into a multi-billion dollar product leaving me in the dust. on the other hand, I don't want to be sued because my for loop looks too similar to some code sitting in some code base unused for 20 years.
Supply chain keeps the price down. If you can skim $4 bucks off of the LCD and $2 off the CPU per unit, you can make the product more available to more users, period.
The difference here is, this is a product a lot of users want to get their hands on.
"Anime Expo", as an abbreviation of Anime Exposition, would fit your definition of "Descriptive, not distinctive." However, AX has won in the past over it's trademark of Anime Expo.
You're wrong. It is possible to trademark something that sounds descriptive, as long as it is also unique. Prior to Apple's foray into mobile applications, there were no stores using the term, "App store."
In your interpretation of trademark law, trademarking simple, descriptive names would be impossible.
But that's my point, prior use of the phrase, "App Store" wasn't that ubiquitous, and prior attempts to create online markets for mobile applications never used that term until now.
I don't think Amazon's got a leg to stand on, it's clear that they're out to lazily infringe on Apple's trade mark and marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't the technical definition that got me, it was the implication that you were getting big iron performance out of small iron equipment.
I noticed you're bitching entirely about Microsoft software :)
Much like how the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad would all fail when competing against more open products?
Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.
I can see a future where it becomes more difficult to shoot yourself in the foot. But removing the option to install software that isn't from the App Store? get fucking real.
Seriously, calling devices "supercomputers" reeks of either fanboyism or extreme ignorance.
I'm reminded of when Apple called Altivec capable CPUs "supercomputers." My brain wants to eat itself so it can forget such silliness.
(if Apple does this again I'm still going to be an apple fanboi, but i will face palm on the way into the Apple store.)
wow. a political optimist.
How rare. A political optimist.
FWIW, I largely agree it's not that bad, but let's be frank here though, some freedoms have taken a bloody nose in the last few decades.
The fact that we can bitch about our Government and not have to worry about a Mubarak or a Gaddafi style crackdown means that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using hyperbole like we do.
"Thunderbolt ports" What? Ports that zap lighting out?
you're probably the type that keeps an extinguisher on hand in case he ever runs into trouble with his firewire peripherals...
i think that needs to be taken in context.
In context with day to day ordinary use, Jobs is one hundred percent correct. Buttons suck.
With gaming? Different story.
An official controller stack via bluetooth or dock connector(or both) would really create an actual threat to nintendo and sony in the handheld field. Playing games like Street Fighter and Sonic on the iPhone kind of blew compared to playing it on the PS3 or 360(Sonic 4 ep 1 was a full 5 bucks cheaper on the iPhone; making it worth it for me; plus it was portable).
The question this is all dancing around is, will this kill traditional gaming platforms?
Short answer is no.
Long answer is no, and I consider your argument ignorant and misinformed.
Nintendo and Sony made roughly the same gains they otherwise would have in the market. Apple being around isn't going to stop Hideo Kojima from putting out Metal Gear on the PSP or Nintendo from putting out Pokemon on the DS.
What Apple IS doing is expanding the market place for mobile devices, they're making the pie bigger and taking that expanded pie away. There's some pull over, but, the types who were crazy for portable gaming before aren't going to stop because they have an iPhone or a Droid somethingoranother.
What is happening is that those who wouldn't have normally been gaming on the go, or even gaming for that matter, are now gaming on their phones in their down time. A few levels of angry birds before bed, a sudoku while waiting at the dentist, etc. I don't think that Nintendo largely has anything to worry about. They're digital crack dealers and just because someone, say Apple, comes by offering digital heroin doesn't mean that their bottom line is compromised.
My Amiga OS4 machine and Haiku installs are probably reasonably safe.
Compare that to Antivirus 2011/2010/2009/Pro/etc. Where it installs via a drive by download.
Yeah.
Consider the infection vectors, then call me.
my old job subsidized my private phone with a healthy discount from AT&T as part of our perks.
I got Angry Birds and Enterprise support from Apple. I just wanted to know if RIM's got any legs to stand on anymore.
are android and ios Office and Outlook integration implementations tight enough to render BB's edge in those fields irrelevant? I know I can view docx, xlsx, and a few other formats on my iOS devices, but I imagined BB would have some sort of edge there. I also thought that BES would have an edge over vanilla Exchange connections over SSL. Huh.
When someone posts a pic of the goatee guy's anus transparencied out and there's Glenn Beck with an iPad playing on a kinect.
Actually, none of the evidence shows that this was a console based hack.
Unfortunately not a lot of information came out, but the bit of information that Sony has released has nearly confirmed that this wasn't a console based hack.
I want a system where if you don't have a product sitting on the shelf using that patent, you can't sue.
This would eliminate 90% of the patent trolls out there.
Yeah, what's so wrong with that?
What's wrong with advocating for a moderate solution where in large scale concepts and innovations like entirely new algorithms to perform tasks related to commercial grade software would be protected, but, also disallow abuse by those who would make it their entire business model to abuse the system?
I never thought moderatism was extremist.
Can you smell what the Rock is cookin'?
Because it's the post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc fallacy.
It's not reasonable because none of the specifics about this case would support that notion. Blackhats don't give a shit one way or the other.
But mechanical patents fall into the same category. Aren't all mechanical patents at it's heart, physics, which is any number of different mathematical fields? What about chemical patents?
But you're right that the danger of software patents, and as I stated above, well, any sort of patent is that our system isn't designed to handle our modern, robust(well, relative compared to our patent law) field of science and math.
The problem is our patent system but the solution isn't to throw it out and go entirely with out some sort of protection of IP in the market place. Nor is it what we've got now. Science and technology have jumped way ahead of our patent system, and if we started to figure out what was fair, we're probably not going to find a really adequate solution, even if we include the possibility of just throwing the whole system out.
I think the least worst solution would have to incorporate the idea that innovations must be protected, but, those protections must be limited.
Last thing I'd want to do is come up with some whizbang unpatented compression technique, only to find out some MegaMondoCorp has turned it into a multi-billion dollar product leaving me in the dust. on the other hand, I don't want to be sued because my for loop looks too similar to some code sitting in some code base unused for 20 years.
According to engadget the password data wa hashed.
How the hell is this insightful? Unless of course you did the hack.
Until they catch whoever did it, it's really sloppy and premature to assume it was for OtherOS. It was probably for the money.
Salesforce's model is based around large corporate application purchasing. Hardly close to the context of consumer facing mobile applications.
I am still correct. No one was selling mobile applications online via anything called an "AppStore" prior to Apple.
Supply chain keeps the price down. If you can skim $4 bucks off of the LCD and $2 off the CPU per unit, you can make the product more available to more users, period.
The difference here is, this is a product a lot of users want to get their hands on.
"Anime Expo", as an abbreviation of Anime Exposition, would fit your definition of "Descriptive, not distinctive." However, AX has won in the past over it's trademark of Anime Expo.
You're wrong. It is possible to trademark something that sounds descriptive, as long as it is also unique. Prior to Apple's foray into mobile applications, there were no stores using the term, "App store."
In your interpretation of trademark law, trademarking simple, descriptive names would be impossible.
Apps or cuts. RIM needs to focus on one of these to stay profitable.
Better APIs means better apps which bring in new users, cuts will allow them to find their niche an stay there. Either way. It needs to move.
But that's my point, prior use of the phrase, "App Store" wasn't that ubiquitous, and prior attempts to create online markets for mobile applications never used that term until now.
I don't think Amazon's got a leg to stand on, it's clear that they're out to lazily infringe on Apple's trade mark and marketing.