In fairness, Google elected to compete with Apple in the mobile space with Android, the desktop space with the Google OS, and with a web browser (based on a technology currently largely driven by Apple no less). Then, when Apple tried to buy AdMob Google pulled the stool from under the deal.
If you were Apple (which is to say Steve Jobs) would you not be rather pissed? I certainly would be. If I had a legal recourse to retaliate in a business context I almost certainly would.
You've got to hand it to Apple they played this one really well. The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition and so Apple feels pretty confident they can compete aggressively with little chance of the government crying foul.
In 2004 I bought 1000 shares of AAPL at around $17. I've never seen a dividend. I have, however, made over $450k in less then 6 years on a $17k investment.
Explain to me again how the stock has no value?
Oh and, Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company with a 29% profit margin. AAPL is a HARDWARE company with a 21.5% profit margin. If this comparison tells us anything it's that Microsoft is in a sad sad state as a software company and Apple is kicking butt as a hardware company. That's why the market is rewarding Apple with a higher market cap.
What do they expect to gain exactly? Apple has just one minor patent in the patent pool. You would think, actually, that Apple would benefit from a patent free codec.
Apple has not basis and no reason to spread FUD against Theora. It does not license any of the H264 patents (it has only 1 in the pool and it's minor). It gains no monetary benefit from H264 (that it would not gain from any other codec). H264 holds no strategic value.
This is Steve saying 'we can't support it because we'd get sued'. It's an a conspiracy. Time to take off the tin foil hat.
- Apple has no significant H. 264 license and has no grounds to sue anyone related to Theora. Apple is saying they know litigation is pending by a 3rd party.
- Apple permits writers and publishers the ability to set their own eBook prices. The market defines the prices.
- The Apple engineer who lost the iPhone remains employed by Apple.
- Flash sucks right, we all agree to that, we all think it should die? Apple starts 'battling it' and it's evil?
These statements are carefully engineered FUD spread by the license holders of competing formats in order to discourage the use of unencumbered alternatives.
Apple is not a significant license holder of competing formats and, it's safe to assume, Steve Jobs is no one's mouthpiece other than his own. The question was asked why Apple does not implement these codecs. The answer is that Apple - possibly but not necessarily through it's participation in MPEG-LA - is aware that litigation against Ogg or Theora (or both) is imminent and it believes that litigation will have merit and so Apple cannot support that format as it could be the target of litigation itself.
Does this have anything to do with this story or are you just ranting? Because if your just ranting that sort of makes you as bad as the fanboys your ranting about.
Just as a reality check, Apple's has only a single patent in the H264 pool which, pretty clearly, does not infringe on Ogg or Theora. So, any expression of evil in this case will have nothing to do with Apple.
There are hundreds of simple games for free on the AppStore. This is not about paying. This is about platform control. Whomever controls the dominant development platform is in a better position to compete.
The reporting on the phone is not at issue. The issue is purchasing stolen properly. Taco and the Playboy collection under his bed are totally in the clear.
1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."
It is a crime in California to 'find' but not return another persons property. Indeed, it's a crime in virtually the entire civilized world. The fact that an item is 'found' in a public place is in no way relevant.
2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).
California State Law does not extend protection to a journalist purchasing a stolen item. The journalists in question clearly understood the property in question was not sold or otherwise made available to the seller by the owner.
The buyers argument should be that the seller tried to 'return' the property and was told it was not necessary (that Apple effectively 'gave' the seller the device) and so the buyer felt the transaction was legitimate. The fact that they are claiming journalistic protection rather than this simple argument suggests that the computers that were seized contain incriminating content (that Chen knew the device was not legitimate and bought it anyway).
It's not possible to do that. Many ARM licenses are already so open that they permit companies - like Qualcomm and TI - to basically create competing designs. If Apple decided to restrict ARM technology it would provide an opportunity for these companies to offer competing products superior to ARM offerings.
(Although that might be Steve's diabolical plan - limit ARM's licensing so as to create a whole industry of ARM design derivatives - and have Apple collect royalties in perpetuity.)
My daughter is 3. She watches movies on an iPhone on road trips and plays - most educational - games, and generally amuses herself quite effectively. The same movies also synced with the the iPad and we now have that as an entertainment option (although, that said, for a small child an iPhone is better because it's easier to hold).
Admittedly we don't have many DVD's and the one's we do have have been ripped and re-encoded which does, admittedly, require some skill but then, you know, this is slashdot.
- you and your party are sitting in a bar - suddenly you kick something with your foot - it looks like last years artifact of awesomeness - BUT NO, ITS BRAND NEW ARTIFACT OF AWESOMNESS! ZOMG! WHAT DO YOU DO?!?
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Well, I know your trolling but I'll bite...
1) The iPad is better than a phone at browsing the web, email, gaming, watching videos... pretty much anything other than calling people. Admittedly I am not going to carry my iPad around but I will take with me in the car and to and from wherever I am going.
2) The iPad is MUCH more portable then a laptop. you can take it to lunch. You can watch videos on a plane in economy. You can give it to your kids to watch videos on road trips.
So, yeah, it's actually better than a phone and a laptop at some things, but certainly not all things.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
You need to actually use one, in your house, to see that your mistaken.
You don't hold the iPad with one hand and types with the other. You prop it on something (like your lap or on the desk) and then you type. It works fine. ( It's not as good as a keyboard by any means. )
The weight is not a problem at all. In fact, I just order my second iPad because my 3yr old daughter is monopolizing it. She carries it in both hands, then she sits, and she puts it on her lap. She was already familiar with the iPhone so it took her 0 time to get used to the iPad. Currently, she finds it less interesting then the iPhone because there are less games and we've not loaded any of her videos on it.
I do agree with Taco that the lack of camera is an issue, otherwise it would be great to chat with grandma on Skype (although grandma, in our case, teaches university computer courses, so it's really more for our daughter than grandma).
BN won't do anything, AT&T will. They'll simply limit Nook's to specific peer's so they can continue to be used for book purchases but not for general web access.
Yes, Apple removed the applications from the STORE but if you bought the app already it remained on your iPhone.
Somewhere, eight lucky (and stupid) people have the 'I am Rich' application they bought from the Apple store installed on their iPhone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
Even though it's long gone from the Apple store.
Interestingly, Google is ok with this application staying on their store. What happens when someone buys this application accidentally, thinking it's a finance management or something. Does Google offer refunds?
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness, Google elected to compete with Apple in the mobile space with Android, the desktop space with the Google OS, and with a web browser (based on a technology currently largely driven by Apple no less). Then, when Apple tried to buy AdMob Google pulled the stool from under the deal.
If you were Apple (which is to say Steve Jobs) would you not be rather pissed? I certainly would be. If I had a legal recourse to retaliate in a business context I almost certainly would.
You've got to hand it to Apple they played this one really well. The FTC just approved of the Google/AdMod deal on the strength of Apple competition and so Apple feels pretty confident they can compete aggressively with little chance of the government crying foul.
In 2004 I bought 1000 shares of AAPL at around $17. I've never seen a dividend. I have, however, made over $450k in less then 6 years on a $17k investment.
Explain to me again how the stock has no value?
Oh and, Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company with a 29% profit margin. AAPL is a HARDWARE company with a 21.5% profit margin. If this comparison tells us anything it's that Microsoft is in a sad sad state as a software company and Apple is kicking butt as a hardware company. That's why the market is rewarding Apple with a higher market cap.
I could buy a car I can fix or I could buy a MUCH better car I have no hope of fixing given my skill set.
That's the choice we all have.
The iPhone is a choice like anything else. You don't like it, don't buy it.
K
Your argument might make sense if it were not for the fact that you can, in fact, watch YouTube videos in the iPhone os browser :-)
K
Check out who is part of MPEG-LA. It's basically every consumer company on this planet. You'd have to go live in a cave.
What do they expect to gain exactly? Apple has just one minor patent in the patent pool. You would think, actually, that Apple would benefit from a patent free codec.
Apple has not basis and no reason to spread FUD against Theora. It does not license any of the H264 patents (it has only 1 in the pool and it's minor). It gains no monetary benefit from H264 (that it would not gain from any other codec). H264 holds no strategic value.
This is Steve saying 'we can't support it because we'd get sued'. It's an a conspiracy. Time to take off the tin foil hat.
I hate to burst your bubble ..
- Apple has no significant H. 264 license and has no grounds to sue anyone related to Theora. Apple is saying they know litigation is pending by a 3rd party.
- Apple permits writers and publishers the ability to set their own eBook prices. The market defines the prices.
- The Apple engineer who lost the iPhone remains employed by Apple.
- Flash sucks right, we all agree to that, we all think it should die? Apple starts 'battling it' and it's evil?
These statements are carefully engineered FUD spread by the license holders of competing formats in order to discourage the use of unencumbered alternatives.
Apple is not a significant license holder of competing formats and, it's safe to assume, Steve Jobs is no one's mouthpiece other than his own. The question was asked why Apple does not implement these codecs. The answer is that Apple - possibly but not necessarily through it's participation in MPEG-LA - is aware that litigation against Ogg or Theora (or both) is imminent and it believes that litigation will have merit and so Apple cannot support that format as it could be the target of litigation itself.
Does this have anything to do with this story or are you just ranting? Because if your just ranting that sort of makes you as bad as the fanboys your ranting about.
Just as a reality check, Apple's has only a single patent in the H264 pool which, pretty clearly, does not infringe on Ogg or Theora. So, any expression of evil in this case will have nothing to do with Apple.
]{
There are hundreds of simple games for free on the AppStore. This is not about paying. This is about platform control. Whomever controls the dominant development platform is in a better position to compete.
The vast majority of major retailers in the civilized world make 'moral or ethical choices' on behalf of their customers. Get over it.
If there is a person who needs a hit from the 'peace pipe' more then Steve Jobs it's the average Slashdot reader.
Another company tried that - Microsoft - and look where that's gotten us.
]{
There is an app for that ...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fortuneball/id285537465?mt=8
The reporting on the phone is not at issue. The issue is purchasing stolen properly. Taco and the Playboy collection under his bed are totally in the clear.
]{
1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."
It is a crime in California to 'find' but not return another persons property. Indeed, it's a crime in virtually the entire civilized world. The fact that an item is 'found' in a public place is in no way relevant.
2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).
California State Law does not extend protection to a journalist purchasing a stolen item. The journalists in question clearly understood the property in question was not sold or otherwise made available to the seller by the owner.
The buyers argument should be that the seller tried to 'return' the property and was told it was not necessary (that Apple effectively 'gave' the seller the device) and so the buyer felt the transaction was legitimate. The fact that they are claiming journalistic protection rather than this simple argument suggests that the computers that were seized contain incriminating content (that Chen knew the device was not legitimate and bought it anyway).
It's not possible to do that. Many ARM licenses are already so open that they permit companies - like Qualcomm and TI - to basically create competing designs. If Apple decided to restrict ARM technology it would provide an opportunity for these companies to offer competing products superior to ARM offerings.
(Although that might be Steve's diabolical plan - limit ARM's licensing so as to create a whole industry of ARM design derivatives - and have Apple collect royalties in perpetuity.)
]{
My daughter is 3. She watches movies on an iPhone on road trips and plays - most educational - games, and generally amuses herself quite effectively. The same movies also synced with the the iPad and we now have that as an entertainment option (although, that said, for a small child an iPhone is better because it's easier to hold).
Admittedly we don't have many DVD's and the one's we do have have been ripped and re-encoded which does, admittedly, require some skill but then, you know, this is slashdot.
It all sounds like a bad d&d plot device ...
- you and your party are sitting in a bar
- suddenly you kick something with your foot
- it looks like last years artifact of awesomeness
- BUT NO, ITS BRAND NEW ARTIFACT OF AWESOMNESS! ZOMG! WHAT DO YOU DO?!?
Well, I know your trolling but I'll bite ...
1) The iPad is better than a phone at browsing the web, email, gaming, watching videos ... pretty much anything other than calling people. Admittedly I am not going to carry my iPad around but I will take with me in the car and to and from wherever I am going.
2) The iPad is MUCH more portable then a laptop. you can take it to lunch. You can watch videos on a plane in economy. You can give it to your kids to watch videos on road trips.
So, yeah, it's actually better than a phone and a laptop at some things, but certainly not all things.
You need to actually use one, in your house, to see that your mistaken.
You don't hold the iPad with one hand and types with the other. You prop it on something (like your lap or on the desk) and then you type. It works fine. ( It's not as good as a keyboard by any means. )
The weight is not a problem at all. In fact, I just order my second iPad because my 3yr old daughter is monopolizing it. She carries it in both hands, then she sits, and she puts it on her lap. She was already familiar with the iPhone so it took her 0 time to get used to the iPad. Currently, she finds it less interesting then the iPhone because there are less games and we've not loaded any of her videos on it.
I do agree with Taco that the lack of camera is an issue, otherwise it would be great to chat with grandma on Skype (although grandma, in our case, teaches university computer courses, so it's really more for our daughter than grandma).
]{
The internet is paid for by the book purchases, with the carrier receiving a percentage of that. Any margin on the device goes to BN/Amazon.
BN won't do anything, AT&T will. They'll simply limit Nook's to specific peer's so they can continue to be used for book purchases but not for general web access.
Yes, Apple removed the applications from the STORE but if you bought the app already it remained on your iPhone.
Somewhere, eight lucky (and stupid) people have the 'I am Rich' application they bought from the Apple store installed on their iPhone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
Even though it's long gone from the Apple store.
Interestingly, Google is ok with this application staying on their store. What happens when someone buys this application accidentally, thinking it's a finance management or something. Does Google offer refunds?