As I was writing my original comment, I was intentionally avoiding the obvious problem with that sort of 3D... the invariable choice of angles, "up the virtual skirt."
Also, this sort of thing would destroy the cinematic experience as we know it.... well maybe not.... it would make choosing the right seats all the more important.
I completely concur. Addicted gamers, unsurprisingly, lack self-discipline enough to make thoughtful decisions even about that which affects them the most.
If someone were to make that part of their legal argument, it could do a lot to convince a jury that all of this game DRM is simply anti-consumer. After all, addicts of various sorts are both exploited and assisted. In many states, a gambling addiction hotline is announced with every lottery ad. We have banned cigarette ads in almost every medium and alcohol ads in almost as many.
People should be 100% entitled to keep the data/media they pay for. This should be required by law. They should be able to save it and hand it down to their kids or donate it to a library or a museum. Our culture and human history is being erased in the future so that people at present can theoretically make a few extra dollars.
There is no escaping that we, as humans vary widely in terms of potential of all sorts whether it be for learning, violence or what have you. We know we can breed dogs and other animals to have specific behavioral characteristics and abilities. Is it so far fetched that humans, also being animals, would demonstrate the same variances and potentials based on breeding? But breeding is just the basis. Since we as humans have an amazing ability to teach and learn, additional variabces exist based on how much a community of humans values certain behaviors whether it is physical strength and violence (sports?) or more passive advancements (academics, getting good jobs?) or even merely physical appearance (models, entertainment?).
It is both. It has always been both and until humans evolve into more purely intellectual creatures, it will always be both. And we *ARE* the living planet of the apes. The gorillas are more suited to certain roles while the chimps are more suited to others. And the damned orangutans are ruling everything.
3D doesn't offer much more than a wow factor... a factor which wears off pretty quickly. The exception to this is in games and simulations.
Every TV and Movie production featuring 3D has been met with "that was pretty cool, but gives me a headache or was too distracting and I couldn't enjoy the story."
The best 3D appears in our heads.
If we were to enjoy a 3D production in the future, it would have to most resemble a stage play allowing the viewer to experience the sensation of being a bystander watching the thing play out. We're simply not there yet... no holograms which is just about the only way to make it happen. It won't stop people from trying and failing again and again, but I think some people get it. Effective 3D would enable people to see things from any and all angles.
I don't suppose it would help to mention that this story is in the UK? That the inventor went into business with a partner who tweaked the invention to "charge a battery" instead of directly powering the device(s) and so they created a new patent and he lost control of his invention.
There's more than patent law at play here though I would say he would have a strong case to sue the partner as they merely made an adaptation on his patent and so he is still entitled to some of his patent claims.
But this is how the system(s) work now.. the people with the most knowledge of the system(s) and the least amount of moral integrity will win out.
Yes great, but the untraceable money thing has me troubled. When politics includes money, it's not quite "free speech." It's influenced speech at the very least and is likely worse.
Even more disturbing is that when large amounts of money from unknown sources is in the hands of the pedestrian public, the presumption is that it is money from illegal activity and is typically confiscated without proof or process. But when it's in politics (in the hands of non-pedestrians) it's handled very differently. If this doesn't spell out the differences between classes, nothing else will.
Google is a search service. They provide a lot of useful information. I wonder if I should go there seeking anything and everything? I ask Google for things of all sorts not the least of which is how to hack my nexus 4 and nexus 7 devices. I wonder, then if I should go to those brick and mortar sites for the same sort of service?:)
Perhaps this is my clever way of wondering if Google isn't exceeding itself a bit too much. I can see Google "guiding" the Android user experience with their own, ostensibly non-competing devices and I was prepared to let it slide. But the idea that they would open a brick and mortar shop? To sell something? I'm a little confused.
On one hand, I would be more inclined to buy Google devices from local Google stores than I would to buy them online. But that's just me. This all leaves me curious... and maybe a little suspicious.
They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing. This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable. Also (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/03/top-selling-iphone-5-flanked-by-strong-sales-of-legacy-iphone-4s-4) customers are not always leaving to new Apple devices, but to old ones. That's a kind of problem too. (Think about how consumers and businesses have scratched and clawed to stay with Windows XP over Windows 7) It is a rejection of Apple's newest changes and of its high pricing. Additionally, there is a lot of attention on Android. And when deciding to move to something else, they are finding more standards observed with Android devices so chargers and all that become a much more simple matter.
The loss of customers isn't quite as easy to see as a loss in market share. The loss of customers is important though. I find it fascinating that you could see the whole source of data but you focus in on a piece which you take out of context. Was that intentional? Apple's standing is changing... it's losing.
In any case, I hold there is more to understanding what is going on than watching numbers. There are questions of "why" and of consumer behaviors to be explored. A replacement phone is not a new customer, for example, though it could be counted as a sale.
I am not a fan or proponent of any given side. I am a fairly unbiased person in that reguard. I am not "loyal" to anything but myself and my interests. I would choose a Windows phone if it served my interests the best. It doesn't, so I don't. And it's hard to choose Apple when I know what I can't do with it... and there's a lot. So what else is there?
Just gonna repeat what everyone else is saying. This is ridiculous.
Apple is getting a lot of negative press on their current legal activities. Their pattents are being eroded. Details of their cases are being foiled in courts around the globe. That billion-dollar judgement will not stand and it is simply unimaginable that the jury verdict will stand in light of the jury misconduct which definitely happened. The numerous cases brought and initially won using doctored/edited visuals for evidence is simply dirty.
And the idea that the CEO didn't want to do this? Explain to me what a CEO does again?
Apple is losing a lot more than cases and patent claims. They are losing their customers. I know, people will cite last years figures and reports to claim they are a reflection of today's and tomorrow's popularity figures. I just don't see it. Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing. That's not to say people using Android are excited fans or anything. They're not. The excitement over touchscreen smartphones and fart-apps is over. Now it's about practical matters which matter to people; Cost, Apps, Usability, Restrictions and other considerations.
Brand recognition is important to consumers for some reason. Apple's brand is being diminished. It is having an affect.
In case no one else recognizes what is wrong with this:
1. Profiting from the misery of others. (Obvious and immoral) 2. Patenting doom.
I guess #2 needs more explanation. Suppose someone creates a genetic mutation which is somehow not only inheritable, but communicable. (Say, through some sort of virus or something) Now, they can be the first to discover it and patent it as well. Then, if a cure is found by anyone, the creators can then seek to profit from it.
Less bad scenario: Another genetic anomaly which is triggered by some weird thing I'm not going to bother imagining just now. Suddenly, global exposure enabled this anomaly to be realized and, let's say, an explosion in autism results. Someone isolates that and makes a windfall from the patent while researchers are still trying to cure the problem or even the isolate the cause/trigger.
Now that I think of it, #1 and #2 are pretty much the same thing. But I'm not going to re-write this. But #2 does say that someone can create the malady for which they have gained a patent. It's not unlike the hell caused by the likes of Monsanto right? So it's not a huge stretch of the imagination here -- we're already seeing similar things.
I thought it was already well established that to have a patent, you have to have created something. They didn't create this... as far as we know right? So it [should] goes without saying that patenting things that occur in nature and math shouldn't happen.
You have to realize Microsoft will not respect this approach and their software will not tie itself online to the the mouse.
It also means that it is quite likely that you will not be able to activate your retail MS Office without an internet connection. If you will be able to do it over the phone, then you may well have the work-around, so long as you never connect the computer to the internet when running MS Office... or... Windows since they are kind of integrated once it is installed.
It will require experimentation.
All of my Windows installs are in VMs. It will not affect me. I don't plan to upgrade beyond 2007 anyway... unless my company makes the boneheaded decision to upgrade without testing and being aware of the consequences and ramifications. (They do that though... they are "testing" Sharepoint 2010 and are now faced with upgrading to Office 2010... not working out well.)
Last time Microsoft made a move like this, they made all volume licenses of desktop Windows "upgrades" so that businesses who depend on a unified and consistent deployment of Windows can only do so legally by buying an OEM license with their computers or a retail version or OS X. Pay twice, use once.
I was wondering what Microsoft would do to MS Office to make it more expensive. Now we have their answer. It's no longer "buy once, use anywhere." And I suspect their retail Windows will soon do the same thing.
Software "licenses" aren't ownership. That means the company who sold it to you can tell you how it can be used. Are you happy with that? I know you're not. But when will the lay people begin to understand this? When will consumer organizations defend the lay people? And when will the government step in and say "hey, you've got an effective monopoly with your critical mass there. You're abusing consumers. Stop it."
While there are lots of problems with the way things have been and are being handled, among these are the ridiculous reactions of business, education and even government has when someone says "hey, I found a problem." It's time "cyber" whistle-blowers get traditional whistle-blower protections.
Actually, I did most of my graphics learning with GiMP and Inkscape. I did take some classes which involved the use of Photoshop and Illustrator (and others in the creative suite) but I found what most people find as a problem in GiMP and others. It comes down to what one is most comfortable and familiar with. While I was able to quickly adapt what I learned with GiMP to Photoshop, most people don't have the same general ability to adapt knowledge to other platforms. (Say, Windows to Linux.)
I'm not sure what the current state of CMYK support in GiMP is... I never use or need it, but to my understanding, that's about the only thing that doesn't really translate when comparing the two by function.
Yes... move the bad [DRM] into HTML and into the browser. We can then more easily write a Firefox patch and/or plugin to suck down DRM'd content.
We know that DRM is unpopular with users and that the first adopters are also the first droppers. DRM'd music formats already a thing of the past are they not? It amazes me that DRM'd gaming still persists.
DRM in HTML standards can never be effective and can certainly be more easily circumvented. So I say "go ahead, do it." It just makes things easier.
And that's the thing though isn't it? "Doing math on a computer"? Is that worthy of a patent? After all, it can be ANY computer. Windows, Linux, Android, Mac or other? Any processor can be used, nearly any hardware configuration can be used. The idea of a software patent as much as they would like to deny it, is in the same ballpark as "on the internet" types of patents.
Running software on a computer is pretty much using a computer for its intended purpose -- executing instructions. By changing the instructions, are you really inventing something new? That's a really tough argument to make.
The more light that comes to software patents, the less likely they will survive in the future.
The Nexus 4 was a pain in the butt to get... at least for me it was. But it was largely due to jack-holes like one of my co-workers who bought multiples so that he could sell them at a premium price. I missed the first round due to other money priorities but the second round I was more prepared for. Even so, Google was having all sorts of trouble but they got it worked out after a few hours of online hell.
Did they sell out because of small numbers? If that were so, I probably wouldn't have gotten one in the second wave. The first wave, I can't speak of -- I wasn't watching.
I think the numbers themselves need to speak rather than a lot of speculation. If the summary is correct, that many selling locations didn't even have enough to satisfy the pre-orders, then you know they simply didn't offer enough. "Sold out in mere seconds!!! OMG! We're popular and desireable!!! Everyone!! You want one of these!!!" Some people will fall for that... a lot of people will. And let's be honest here. Some people will want a Windows device over Android or iPad tablets because they expect certain things... and they will get them... mostly. I'm more interested in what those customers think AFTER they have their thing.
And as far as Google's Nexus 4? Well... I think they are intentionally scarce for some reasons. Google wants to stir up interest in Android devices, not lead the market. They don't actually want a Nexus 4 in every hand. It could be said that Microsoft is no different in that respect. They aren't in the device making and selling business... well, except for keyboards, mice and XBoxes. I think they are more interested in having the world standing in line for days to get any Windows8 machine.
This is essentially true. If a software patent was required to have sample code implementing (thus making more precise) the patent claims, it would be exposed as a mathematical operation and one that is completely independent of the hardware. It becomes a method patent which, guess what, has been practically negated by Bilski.
There actually is no middle ground. Software patents exist now because they have gotten away from hiding the truth for so long. And after watching so many court battles over technology issues (and especially software technology issues) it has become quite evident that ignorance is the weapon most often wielded in these cases.
I consider Groklaw to be an extremely reliable source of fact, insight and opinion. The patents are NOT invalidated, but the claims cited within are. It's a software patent, after all.
One of the strong points of iPhone is the fact that it is very manufacturer supported. It is *THE BEST* menufacturer supported consumer device out there. I don't care what you cheer for or what you bought, I think there's simply no denying Apple's iPhone is at the top in this category. They get updates. They get fixes. The carrier does not and cannot get in the way. (Though in the early days with AT&T demanding Apple disable tethering and all that kinda sucked.) After saying all this, you would think I'm another Appe fanboy. I'm not. I'm not any kind of fan boy, but I choose Android over all others and choose carrier independence by going with unlocked, rooted and custom ROM'd phones. So all that out of the way, what am I talking about cutting both ways?
Well, this: Apple pushes updates to the whole OS -- kernel, apps and all, to all users and all [selected] phones. "The experience" is pretty important to Apple and that it should be consistent is a high priority to them. I think their rate of updates appear to be okay but their all-or-nothing thing is a problem in that problems like these occur and from what I understand, going back to a previous version is not done... not casually anyway and requires jailbreaking maybe?
The power of the various versions of the iPhones vary. Android devices vary a LOT more. And as I look at the potential of the devices, it is easy to observe that the hardware has limits which shouldn't be exceeded. I've been pissed off at T-Mobile and Samsung for not updating my SGS2 soon enough or for long enough, but sometimes the argument that the hardware can't support the software is true. This Apple story rather reminds me of that fact.
So it cuts when the device (iPhone or Android) doesn't get the updates users crave, but it also cuts when the updates kill the phone. I guess it's time for me (and anyone else who hasn't yet) to accept that my expensive phone(s) are to be considered short-term use devices with a life expenctancy of about a year... maybe a year and a half. (And certainly not the duration of the contracts that most people sign in order to get their new shiny.)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a more PC like experience with our phones? By that I mean, choose our body/case, display, processor, RAM, storage, radios and all that? I know... too much to hope for. Still, to fight be able osolecence would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
As I was writing my original comment, I was intentionally avoiding the obvious problem with that sort of 3D... the invariable choice of angles, "up the virtual skirt."
Also, this sort of thing would destroy the cinematic experience as we know it.... well maybe not.... it would make choosing the right seats all the more important.
I completely concur. Addicted gamers, unsurprisingly, lack self-discipline enough to make thoughtful decisions even about that which affects them the most.
If someone were to make that part of their legal argument, it could do a lot to convince a jury that all of this game DRM is simply anti-consumer. After all, addicts of various sorts are both exploited and assisted. In many states, a gambling addiction hotline is announced with every lottery ad. We have banned cigarette ads in almost every medium and alcohol ads in almost as many.
People should be 100% entitled to keep the data/media they pay for. This should be required by law. They should be able to save it and hand it down to their kids or donate it to a library or a museum. Our culture and human history is being erased in the future so that people at present can theoretically make a few extra dollars.
There is no escaping that we, as humans vary widely in terms of potential of all sorts whether it be for learning, violence or what have you. We know we can breed dogs and other animals to have specific behavioral characteristics and abilities. Is it so far fetched that humans, also being animals, would demonstrate the same variances and potentials based on breeding? But breeding is just the basis. Since we as humans have an amazing ability to teach and learn, additional variabces exist based on how much a community of humans values certain behaviors whether it is physical strength and violence (sports?) or more passive advancements (academics, getting good jobs?) or even merely physical appearance (models, entertainment?).
It is both. It has always been both and until humans evolve into more purely intellectual creatures, it will always be both. And we *ARE* the living planet of the apes. The gorillas are more suited to certain roles while the chimps are more suited to others. And the damned orangutans are ruling everything.
3D doesn't offer much more than a wow factor... a factor which wears off pretty quickly. The exception to this is in games and simulations.
Every TV and Movie production featuring 3D has been met with "that was pretty cool, but gives me a headache or was too distracting and I couldn't enjoy the story."
The best 3D appears in our heads.
If we were to enjoy a 3D production in the future, it would have to most resemble a stage play allowing the viewer to experience the sensation of being a bystander watching the thing play out. We're simply not there yet... no holograms which is just about the only way to make it happen. It won't stop people from trying and failing again and again, but I think some people get it. Effective 3D would enable people to see things from any and all angles.
I don't suppose it would help to mention that this story is in the UK? That the inventor went into business with a partner who tweaked the invention to "charge a battery" instead of directly powering the device(s) and so they created a new patent and he lost control of his invention.
There's more than patent law at play here though I would say he would have a strong case to sue the partner as they merely made an adaptation on his patent and so he is still entitled to some of his patent claims.
But this is how the system(s) work now.. the people with the most knowledge of the system(s) and the least amount of moral integrity will win out.
Yes great, but the untraceable money thing has me troubled. When politics includes money, it's not quite "free speech." It's influenced speech at the very least and is likely worse.
Even more disturbing is that when large amounts of money from unknown sources is in the hands of the pedestrian public, the presumption is that it is money from illegal activity and is typically confiscated without proof or process. But when it's in politics (in the hands of non-pedestrians) it's handled very differently. If this doesn't spell out the differences between classes, nothing else will.
Google is a search service. They provide a lot of useful information. I wonder if I should go there seeking anything and everything? I ask Google for things of all sorts not the least of which is how to hack my nexus 4 and nexus 7 devices. I wonder, then if I should go to those brick and mortar sites for the same sort of service? :)
Perhaps this is my clever way of wondering if Google isn't exceeding itself a bit too much. I can see Google "guiding" the Android user experience with their own, ostensibly non-competing devices and I was prepared to let it slide. But the idea that they would open a brick and mortar shop? To sell something? I'm a little confused.
On one hand, I would be more inclined to buy Google devices from local Google stores than I would to buy them online. But that's just me. This all leaves me curious... and maybe a little suspicious.
They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing. This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable. Also (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/03/top-selling-iphone-5-flanked-by-strong-sales-of-legacy-iphone-4s-4) customers are not always leaving to new Apple devices, but to old ones. That's a kind of problem too. (Think about how consumers and businesses have scratched and clawed to stay with Windows XP over Windows 7) It is a rejection of Apple's newest changes and of its high pricing. Additionally, there is a lot of attention on Android. And when deciding to move to something else, they are finding more standards observed with Android devices so chargers and all that become a much more simple matter.
The loss of customers isn't quite as easy to see as a loss in market share. The loss of customers is important though. I find it fascinating that you could see the whole source of data but you focus in on a piece which you take out of context. Was that intentional? Apple's standing is changing... it's losing.
In any case, I hold there is more to understanding what is going on than watching numbers. There are questions of "why" and of consumer behaviors to be explored. A replacement phone is not a new customer, for example, though it could be counted as a sale.
I am not a fan or proponent of any given side. I am a fairly unbiased person in that reguard. I am not "loyal" to anything but myself and my interests. I would choose a Windows phone if it served my interests the best. It doesn't, so I don't. And it's hard to choose Apple when I know what I can't do with it... and there's a lot. So what else is there?
Just gonna repeat what everyone else is saying. This is ridiculous.
Apple is getting a lot of negative press on their current legal activities. Their pattents are being eroded. Details of their cases are being foiled in courts around the globe. That billion-dollar judgement will not stand and it is simply unimaginable that the jury verdict will stand in light of the jury misconduct which definitely happened. The numerous cases brought and initially won using doctored/edited visuals for evidence is simply dirty.
And the idea that the CEO didn't want to do this? Explain to me what a CEO does again?
Apple is losing a lot more than cases and patent claims. They are losing their customers. I know, people will cite last years figures and reports to claim they are a reflection of today's and tomorrow's popularity figures. I just don't see it. Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing. That's not to say people using Android are excited fans or anything. They're not. The excitement over touchscreen smartphones and fart-apps is over. Now it's about practical matters which matter to people; Cost, Apps, Usability, Restrictions and other considerations.
Brand recognition is important to consumers for some reason. Apple's brand is being diminished. It is having an affect.
Buy any medicines they create.
Are you seriously putting human life below profits? This lack of humanity needs to end.
In case no one else recognizes what is wrong with this:
1. Profiting from the misery of others. (Obvious and immoral)
2. Patenting doom.
I guess #2 needs more explanation. Suppose someone creates a genetic mutation which is somehow not only inheritable, but communicable. (Say, through some sort of virus or something) Now, they can be the first to discover it and patent it as well. Then, if a cure is found by anyone, the creators can then seek to profit from it.
Less bad scenario: Another genetic anomaly which is triggered by some weird thing I'm not going to bother imagining just now. Suddenly, global exposure enabled this anomaly to be realized and, let's say, an explosion in autism results. Someone isolates that and makes a windfall from the patent while researchers are still trying to cure the problem or even the isolate the cause/trigger.
Now that I think of it, #1 and #2 are pretty much the same thing. But I'm not going to re-write this. But #2 does say that someone can create the malady for which they have gained a patent. It's not unlike the hell caused by the likes of Monsanto right? So it's not a huge stretch of the imagination here -- we're already seeing similar things.
I thought it was already well established that to have a patent, you have to have created something. They didn't create this... as far as we know right? So it [should] goes without saying that patenting things that occur in nature and math shouldn't happen.
If I learned anything from watching Stargate SG-1, it's that everything that happens in space is explained as "a meteor."
You have to realize Microsoft will not respect this approach and their software will not tie itself online to the the mouse.
It also means that it is quite likely that you will not be able to activate your retail MS Office without an internet connection. If you will be able to do it over the phone, then you may well have the work-around, so long as you never connect the computer to the internet when running MS Office... or... Windows since they are kind of integrated once it is installed.
It will require experimentation.
All of my Windows installs are in VMs. It will not affect me. I don't plan to upgrade beyond 2007 anyway... unless my company makes the boneheaded decision to upgrade without testing and being aware of the consequences and ramifications. (They do that though... they are "testing" Sharepoint 2010 and are now faced with upgrading to Office 2010... not working out well.)
Last time Microsoft made a move like this, they made all volume licenses of desktop Windows "upgrades" so that businesses who depend on a unified and consistent deployment of Windows can only do so legally by buying an OEM license with their computers or a retail version or OS X. Pay twice, use once.
I was wondering what Microsoft would do to MS Office to make it more expensive. Now we have their answer. It's no longer "buy once, use anywhere." And I suspect their retail Windows will soon do the same thing.
Software "licenses" aren't ownership. That means the company who sold it to you can tell you how it can be used. Are you happy with that? I know you're not. But when will the lay people begin to understand this? When will consumer organizations defend the lay people? And when will the government step in and say "hey, you've got an effective monopoly with your critical mass there. You're abusing consumers. Stop it."
Awesome. I can't believe it's there for anyone to see :) Where is it "banned" and by whose authority?
While there are lots of problems with the way things have been and are being handled, among these are the ridiculous reactions of business, education and even government has when someone says "hey, I found a problem." It's time "cyber" whistle-blowers get traditional whistle-blower protections.
Actually, I did most of my graphics learning with GiMP and Inkscape. I did take some classes which involved the use of Photoshop and Illustrator (and others in the creative suite) but I found what most people find as a problem in GiMP and others. It comes down to what one is most comfortable and familiar with. While I was able to quickly adapt what I learned with GiMP to Photoshop, most people don't have the same general ability to adapt knowledge to other platforms. (Say, Windows to Linux.)
I'm not sure what the current state of CMYK support in GiMP is... I never use or need it, but to my understanding, that's about the only thing that doesn't really translate when comparing the two by function.
Yes... move the bad [DRM] into HTML and into the browser. We can then more easily write a Firefox patch and/or plugin to suck down DRM'd content.
We know that DRM is unpopular with users and that the first adopters are also the first droppers. DRM'd music formats already a thing of the past are they not? It amazes me that DRM'd gaming still persists.
DRM in HTML standards can never be effective and can certainly be more easily circumvented. So I say "go ahead, do it." It just makes things easier.
And that's the thing though isn't it? "Doing math on a computer"? Is that worthy of a patent? After all, it can be ANY computer. Windows, Linux, Android, Mac or other? Any processor can be used, nearly any hardware configuration can be used. The idea of a software patent as much as they would like to deny it, is in the same ballpark as "on the internet" types of patents.
Running software on a computer is pretty much using a computer for its intended purpose -- executing instructions. By changing the instructions, are you really inventing something new? That's a really tough argument to make.
The more light that comes to software patents, the less likely they will survive in the future.
The Nexus 4 was a pain in the butt to get... at least for me it was. But it was largely due to jack-holes like one of my co-workers who bought multiples so that he could sell them at a premium price. I missed the first round due to other money priorities but the second round I was more prepared for. Even so, Google was having all sorts of trouble but they got it worked out after a few hours of online hell.
Did they sell out because of small numbers? If that were so, I probably wouldn't have gotten one in the second wave. The first wave, I can't speak of -- I wasn't watching.
I think the numbers themselves need to speak rather than a lot of speculation. If the summary is correct, that many selling locations didn't even have enough to satisfy the pre-orders, then you know they simply didn't offer enough. "Sold out in mere seconds!!! OMG! We're popular and desireable!!! Everyone!! You want one of these!!!" Some people will fall for that... a lot of people will. And let's be honest here. Some people will want a Windows device over Android or iPad tablets because they expect certain things... and they will get them... mostly. I'm more interested in what those customers think AFTER they have their thing.
And as far as Google's Nexus 4? Well... I think they are intentionally scarce for some reasons. Google wants to stir up interest in Android devices, not lead the market. They don't actually want a Nexus 4 in every hand. It could be said that Microsoft is no different in that respect. They aren't in the device making and selling business... well, except for keyboards, mice and XBoxes. I think they are more interested in having the world standing in line for days to get any Windows8 machine.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-gets-magnetic-iPod-implant/tabid/420/articleID/254632/Default.aspx
This is essentially true. If a software patent was required to have sample code implementing (thus making more precise) the patent claims, it would be exposed as a mathematical operation and one that is completely independent of the hardware. It becomes a method patent which, guess what, has been practically negated by Bilski.
There actually is no middle ground. Software patents exist now because they have gotten away from hiding the truth for so long. And after watching so many court battles over technology issues (and especially software technology issues) it has become quite evident that ignorance is the weapon most often wielded in these cases.
I consider Groklaw to be an extremely reliable source of fact, insight and opinion. The patents are NOT invalidated, but the claims cited within are. It's a software patent, after all.
I'll start by raising mine. Seriously. It's just funny to me now.
One of the strong points of iPhone is the fact that it is very manufacturer supported. It is *THE BEST* menufacturer supported consumer device out there. I don't care what you cheer for or what you bought, I think there's simply no denying Apple's iPhone is at the top in this category. They get updates. They get fixes. The carrier does not and cannot get in the way. (Though in the early days with AT&T demanding Apple disable tethering and all that kinda sucked.) After saying all this, you would think I'm another Appe fanboy. I'm not. I'm not any kind of fan boy, but I choose Android over all others and choose carrier independence by going with unlocked, rooted and custom ROM'd phones. So all that out of the way, what am I talking about cutting both ways?
Well, this: Apple pushes updates to the whole OS -- kernel, apps and all, to all users and all [selected] phones. "The experience" is pretty important to Apple and that it should be consistent is a high priority to them. I think their rate of updates appear to be okay but their all-or-nothing thing is a problem in that problems like these occur and from what I understand, going back to a previous version is not done... not casually anyway and requires jailbreaking maybe?
The power of the various versions of the iPhones vary. Android devices vary a LOT more. And as I look at the potential of the devices, it is easy to observe that the hardware has limits which shouldn't be exceeded. I've been pissed off at T-Mobile and Samsung for not updating my SGS2 soon enough or for long enough, but sometimes the argument that the hardware can't support the software is true. This Apple story rather reminds me of that fact.
So it cuts when the device (iPhone or Android) doesn't get the updates users crave, but it also cuts when the updates kill the phone. I guess it's time for me (and anyone else who hasn't yet) to accept that my expensive phone(s) are to be considered short-term use devices with a life expenctancy of about a year... maybe a year and a half. (And certainly not the duration of the contracts that most people sign in order to get their new shiny.)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a more PC like experience with our phones? By that I mean, choose our body/case, display, processor, RAM, storage, radios and all that? I know... too much to hope for. Still, to fight be able osolecence would be nice.