Apple is a huge engineering company which has been around for decades--they hold thousands of patents covering all sorts of technology--including patents involved in many standards, most of which are licensed under FRAND terms. Frankly, you make yourself look like an idiot by claiming otherwise.
they've been on the receiving end of RAND abuse, but I've never heard of them extracting unreasonable tolls/terms on any standards-contributed RAND technology.
the US suicide rate. 5.4 per 100,000 vs. 11.9 per 100,000 in the US.
You seem to be quite obsessed with the plight of the Chinese worker, are you such a heartless bastard as to ignore the conditions under which Americans live and toil?
Have you ever seen an Apple fan who argued that tinker-friendly options shouldn't exist? Never. Not one single one that I have ever seen. If your argument is that tinker-free alternatives can't survive without a subsidy by Apple; well, I think that is farfetched, but at least that would be a cogent argument. I would offer as an example the existence of certified vs. experimental aircraft--they coexist under different regulatory rules, the latter allowing for a vibrant tinkering community. That's how I see the consumer mobile tablet/phone market developing.
Put another way, if you don't like Disneyworld then don't go there--but it is obnoxious to argue that it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it. There are so many examples of walled gardens that it is hard to believe you don't understand this very basic concept.
I stand by my assertion that you are a nerd wannabe--hacking away on some Ruby on Rails crap. No true engineer has such an open disgust for nontechnical users.
I've heard this before and it is crap--you claim that Apple could provide an easy option to use a non-curated means of loading native apps onto their iProducts and still maintain the same robustness and quality of user experience because people who don't want to won't exercise that capability. This attitude betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how users interact with technology. To put it briefly, it fails the "Re: Re: Re: Here try this out!" attack. A nontechnical user receives an email that claims they can unlock a free copy of Angry Birds Extreme by following some simple instructions to enable non-curated apps--they click through all warning messages (because that is what Windows has trained them to do over the last 20 years) and boom--they are using a buggy malware infested piece of crap app. Now they need to run virus checkers, take their phone into the Best Buy guys, or maybe over to that nerdy kid next door. Oh wait, I can just download this other app that promises to clean up my phone and make it run faster.
Of course you'll say that the user got what he deserved, because fundamentally you think the point of technology is to make those who understand it feel righteously indignant towards those who don't. That is not the point of technology. People who design bridges don't intend that the bridge should work properly only for those with civil engineering degrees. People who design elevators don't feel offended when some obnoxious prick says it has a "dumbed down interface". Your microwave also doesn't allow you to side load apps onto it. Get the idea yet?
You know what? people who design computers (I'm one of them) also really want those computers to be safe and usable for nontechnical folks, as do people who design operating systems and most apps--these are people who have far more technical cred than most of the wannabes that hang out on slashdot. So who is it that is complaining about Apple? frankly it is a bunch of insecure bratty little script kiddies. Losers.
There are lots of examples of walled gardens in the world--Apple provides those who want it a brief repose from the malware infested cesspool. The smug technoratti hate this because (a) they don't think that nontechnical people should be allowed to safely use technology without having to kiss their rings, and (b) they want hundreds of millions of nontechnical users to subsidize their desire to tinker.
> Apple presents itself as a "think different", hip, cool, enlightened company, > much more so than any other consumer electronics brand. So this kind of > thing contrasts with their public image much more strongly than any other > consumer electronics company.
"Someone with a better haircut than me likes their smartphone, which obviously needs to be punished, so I want to rub it in their faces that their phone is made by Chinese workers under poor conditions and hope they don't notice that my phone and all my other consumer electronics are made in the same or worse conditions."
> Steve Jobs famously said that he would spend every dollar that Apple has in the bank - now $100 > billion - to destroy Android because Google had the temerity to compete with Apple in mobile.
In all fairness, Steve Jobs wasn't scared of competition and didn't feel entitled to monopoly; he did, however, feel that Apple had invested quite a bit of skill and effort into making the first smartphone with broad consumer appeal and that Android/Samsung/etc. were brazenly copying it. He felt the same way about Windows copying Mac so that probably left a bit of a chip on his shoulder.
The fact is, though, that (a) intellectual property law doesn't offer much direct protection against the type of "copying" that was & is going on, (b) the ego and insular nature of Apple prevented Jobs from noticing that other people were working on the same problem and thus unsurprisingly rendered similar solutions over time, and (c) to the extent there is "copying"; frankly, Apple has also occasionally indulged in similar types of "copying".
Life is a long process of slowly shedding the absolutism one has as a child through the course of learning some unpleasant realities. One of them is, "Justice can never be perfect, but imperfect justice is far better than no justice."
Lots of disabled folks can't afford $5000 for an augmentative communication device but can afford $500 for an iPad.
But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if some other device could theoretically do roughly the same job, if a tablet does that job better for that person then I don't see why anyone should feel like an indulgent elitist prick for buying one--which is exactly what you are implying.
Basically, you don't like iPads because someone who wears nicer shoes than you likes their iPad. It's pathetic, transparent, and boring.
either "hate" or "everything"--unless you really plan on intentionally buying something that you hate.
It will be nice someday when I no longer have to listen to insecure geeks who feel like they have to preface every post with "I hate everything about Apple", right before they declare their intention to buy an Apple product.
Maybe you should learn something about technology
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
if "Marketing" is the best explanation you have for why hundreds of millions of people are happily using some piece of technology.
Sad, just really pathetic.
So no one on the face of the planet uses a tablet
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
for work? No one in point-of-sale, inventory management? What about all the disabled people who are able to use an iPad as an augmentative communication device?
I think what you meant to say is that *you* don't need a tablet for work, and since you are an obnoxious jerk you couldn't care less about what anybody else needs.
Yet another prediction of Apple's imminent demise by some out-of-touch spec-humper. Yawn, I'm going to take a nap now while my Apple stock appreciates another 20%.
A laptop costs more than a desktop and does less.
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The original iPod could fit in your pocket, the Nomad couldn't. The iPod had a slicker UI and a higher speed link. And a couple years later they integrated it with a slick online music store. That was game over.
But by all means, please continue to believe it was all just 'marketing' while I purchase some more Apple stock.
...what CmdrTaco missed was exactly what Apple saw. There was a massive untapped market for user-friendly consumer electronic & computing products. While the smug technoratti were still obsessed with stats & features, Apple saw what people wanted before they did and gave it to them. CmdrTaco's "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." will go down in history (like "Let them eat cake") as emblematic of a group of 'elites' detached from reality.
BTW: In case you haven't noticed, Apple tapped that market and now they have a $500B market cap.
Slashdot Mirror
nm
Apple is a huge engineering company which has been around for decades--they hold thousands of patents covering all sorts of technology--including patents involved in many standards, most of which are licensed under FRAND terms. Frankly, you make yourself look like an idiot by claiming otherwise.
Ever heard of IEEE 1264 (Firewire)? H.264?
they've been on the receiving end of RAND abuse, but I've never heard of them extracting unreasonable tolls/terms on any standards-contributed RAND technology.
they are all basically made under the same or worse conditions as Apple products in China--why all this outrage over 5% of the problem?
the US suicide rate. 5.4 per 100,000 vs. 11.9 per 100,000 in the US.
You seem to be quite obsessed with the plight of the Chinese worker, are you such a heartless bastard as to ignore the conditions under which Americans live and toil?
data:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-26/tech/30097107_1_suicide-rate-foxconn-suicide-prevention
http://www.mentalhealthnewstoday.com/091245-current-suicide-rates-among-americans-highest-for-the-past-15-years
Have you ever seen an Apple fan who argued that tinker-friendly options shouldn't exist? Never. Not one single one that I have ever seen. If your argument is that tinker-free alternatives can't survive without a subsidy by Apple; well, I think that is farfetched, but at least that would be a cogent argument. I would offer as an example the existence of certified vs. experimental aircraft--they coexist under different regulatory rules, the latter allowing for a vibrant tinkering community. That's how I see the consumer mobile tablet/phone market developing.
Put another way, if you don't like Disneyworld then don't go there--but it is obnoxious to argue that it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it. There are so many examples of walled gardens that it is hard to believe you don't understand this very basic concept.
I stand by my assertion that you are a nerd wannabe--hacking away on some Ruby on Rails crap. No true engineer has such an open disgust for nontechnical users.
I've heard this before and it is crap--you claim that Apple could provide an easy option to use a non-curated means of loading native apps onto their iProducts and still maintain the same robustness and quality of user experience because people who don't want to won't exercise that capability. This attitude betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how users interact with technology. To put it briefly, it fails the "Re: Re: Re: Here try this out!" attack. A nontechnical user receives an email that claims they can unlock a free copy of Angry Birds Extreme by following some simple instructions to enable non-curated apps--they click through all warning messages (because that is what Windows has trained them to do over the last 20 years) and boom--they are using a buggy malware infested piece of crap app. Now they need to run virus checkers, take their phone into the Best Buy guys, or maybe over to that nerdy kid next door. Oh wait, I can just download this other app that promises to clean up my phone and make it run faster.
Of course you'll say that the user got what he deserved, because fundamentally you think the point of technology is to make those who understand it feel righteously indignant towards those who don't. That is not the point of technology. People who design bridges don't intend that the bridge should work properly only for those with civil engineering degrees. People who design elevators don't feel offended when some obnoxious prick says it has a "dumbed down interface". Your microwave also doesn't allow you to side load apps onto it. Get the idea yet?
You know what? people who design computers (I'm one of them) also really want those computers to be safe and usable for nontechnical folks, as do people who design operating systems and most apps--these are people who have far more technical cred than most of the wannabes that hang out on slashdot. So who is it that is complaining about Apple? frankly it is a bunch of insecure bratty little script kiddies. Losers.
There are lots of examples of walled gardens in the world--Apple provides those who want it a brief repose from the malware infested cesspool. The smug technoratti hate this because (a) they don't think that nontechnical people should be allowed to safely use technology without having to kiss their rings, and (b) they want hundreds of millions of nontechnical users to subsidize their desire to tinker.
> Apple presents itself as a "think different", hip, cool, enlightened company,
> much more so than any other consumer electronics brand. So this kind of
> thing contrasts with their public image much more strongly than any other
> consumer electronics company.
"Someone with a better haircut than me likes their smartphone, which obviously needs to be punished, so I want to rub it in their faces that their phone is made by Chinese workers under poor conditions and hope they don't notice that my phone and all my other consumer electronics are made in the same or worse conditions."
that huge consumer market of people writing books, software development, and darkroom work.
If the US/EU/Japan shut down trade with China, who do you think that hurts the most?
> Steve Jobs famously said that he would spend every dollar that Apple has in the bank - now $100
> billion - to destroy Android because Google had the temerity to compete with Apple in mobile.
In all fairness, Steve Jobs wasn't scared of competition and didn't feel entitled to monopoly; he did, however, feel that Apple had invested quite a bit of skill and effort into making the first smartphone with broad consumer appeal and that Android/Samsung/etc. were brazenly copying it. He felt the same way about Windows copying Mac so that probably left a bit of a chip on his shoulder.
The fact is, though, that (a) intellectual property law doesn't offer much direct protection against the type of "copying" that was & is going on, (b) the ego and insular nature of Apple prevented Jobs from noticing that other people were working on the same problem and thus unsurprisingly rendered similar solutions over time, and (c) to the extent there is "copying"; frankly, Apple has also occasionally indulged in similar types of "copying".
when do you graduate?
ten thousand, one hundred thousand?
Life is a long process of slowly shedding the absolutism one has as a child through the course of learning some unpleasant realities. One of them is, "Justice can never be perfect, but imperfect justice is far better than no justice."
answer that, and you'll understand a little better how the world works.
the smartphone which is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of an iPhone with the same level of functionality and polish. Now do the same for tablets.
Such a sad, tired old meme.
Lots of disabled folks can't afford $5000 for an augmentative communication device but can afford $500 for an iPad.
But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if some other device could theoretically do roughly the same job, if a tablet does that job better for that person then I don't see why anyone should feel like an indulgent elitist prick for buying one--which is exactly what you are implying.
Basically, you don't like iPads because someone who wears nicer shoes than you likes their iPad. It's pathetic, transparent, and boring.
either "hate" or "everything"--unless you really plan on intentionally buying something that you hate.
It will be nice someday when I no longer have to listen to insecure geeks who feel like they have to preface every post with "I hate everything about Apple", right before they declare their intention to buy an Apple product.
if "Marketing" is the best explanation you have for why hundreds of millions of people are happily using some piece of technology.
Sad, just really pathetic.
for work? No one in point-of-sale, inventory management? What about all the disabled people who are able to use an iPad as an augmentative communication device?
I think what you meant to say is that *you* don't need a tablet for work, and since you are an obnoxious jerk you couldn't care less about what anybody else needs.
Yet another prediction of Apple's imminent demise by some out-of-touch spec-humper. Yawn, I'm going to take a nap now while my Apple stock appreciates another 20%.
Your move, Einstein.
I want one.
The original iPod could fit in your pocket, the Nomad couldn't. The iPod had a slicker UI and a higher speed link. And a couple years later they integrated it with a slick online music store. That was game over.
But by all means, please continue to believe it was all just 'marketing' while I purchase some more Apple stock.
...what CmdrTaco missed was exactly what Apple saw. There was a massive untapped market for user-friendly consumer electronic & computing products. While the smug technoratti were still obsessed with stats & features, Apple saw what people wanted before they did and gave it to them. CmdrTaco's "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." will go down in history (like "Let them eat cake") as emblematic of a group of 'elites' detached from reality.
BTW: In case you haven't noticed, Apple tapped that market and now they have a $500B market cap.