On the contrary, Apple didn't really show anything very new here. Maybe the new Mac, but iOS 7 in particular is just an incremental upgrade with no big headline features like they have always had in the past.
So for years you complained about "no real multitasking" - now that its here, it's not even worth a mention.
Under the new naming convention, Apple employees will be known as Stallions, developers shall be know as Geldings, and the consumers shall be known as Mares. The apple education consumers are called Ponies.
If you come up with a super-efficient battery, the fact that "batteries" have been known for centuries doesn't mean that you can't get a patent - you get a patent on your improvement and it doesn't cover the original, old battery.
You mean if I improve the design of a battery, let's say by using rounded corners on it, I can patent that design?
Sure. Motorola did that. They successfully banned the sale of third party replacement batteries because they had a design patent on their phone batteries.
Boy it sure is easy to "invent" stuff that other people have been doing for years. But like Microsoft, Apple's whole business model is built upon stealing other people's ideas [cough cough] Xerox Parc.
Yeah, because Xerox actually invented the GUI (hint: they didn't).
Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?
What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.
What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.
As far as I know all other smartphones are immune to this kind of attack because they don't try to communicate with the charger. They just draw 500mA, or 1000mA if the USB data lines are shorted out. No comms at all, hence no infection vector.
The only reason this works is because Apple put DRM in their chargers to prevent people creating cheaper clones. The charger sends an ID string back, but rather than being fixed length it is null terminated so can cause a buffer overflow.
While it sounds like a way criminals might steal electricity it is actually how criminals can use charging kiosks to install malware on your portable devices. A charging kiosk is a public resource for charging your USB capable devices such as your Android Phone or iPhone.
If anything, iPhones are actually less vulnerable because (as you keep pointing out) they don't use the standard USB for charging. Of course that isn't actually true, but mostly because you are again wrong.
It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...
So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?
You won't get any argument from me that Amazon isn't just as bad, but this isn't kindergarten and hence a valid excuse isn't "but muuuuum he did it first".
You are right, this isn't kindergarten, this is the fucking DOJ, and they shouldn't selectively prosecute in the same fucking case.
The difference is, there is no evidence Amazon was telling the publishers they couldn't sell their books cheaper elsewhere - that's the crux of the issue with the way Apple was doing it here.
Both Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) and Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) have agreements with those publishers that ensure they'll receive the best prices for e-books over any of their competitors, Blumenthal said in a prepared statement.
By "price-match" we mean where we sell the Digital Book in one or more of the Available Sales Territories at a price (net of taxes) that is below the List Price to match a third party's sales price for any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book, or to match our sales price for any physical edition of the Digital Book, in any one of the Available Sales Territories.
For non-agency titles (in other words, titles that Amazon purchases to sell under the wholesale model,) Amazon reserves the right to set and change the price as it sees fit, although it will still remit the same wholesale amount back to the publisher or author. If Amazon drops its price for a title below that of Apple or Barnes & Noble, even without the knowledge of the publisher or author, Apple and Barnes & Noble have the right to match Amazon's price.
Read that through again. The blogger you are sourcing is misrepresenting what a "Most Favored Nation" agreement is.
Bullshit. He describes how evil Amazon's version of the MFNC is. And you are to stupid/paid to tell.
Amazon regularly scans the prices for eBooks at competitive websites and will automatically drop the price of any title that it finds lower at another site, without giving notice to the publisher (or, for a self-published eBook, the author.)
Ok... can you explain how Amazon cutting their own profit is price fixing?
Did I say it was? Do you move goal posts as a profession or is it a hobby? Did you even notice I was quoting an article?
Amazon's ridiculously thin margins aren't a short-term tactic to eliminate competitors. If they were, Amazon would've started hiking up prices in things like books and videogames where they've all but eliminated the competition. Slim margins are the entire (incredibly dubious) business model, and they'll continue with that process, bringing in fractions of cents of profit per dollar of sales, indefinitely.
It ain't healthy for anybody.
So it's actually a long-term tactic to fuck over their shareholders. And I wouldn't call losing 20% on most ebook sales "slim".
If it's anything like Europe, Apple will be required to end their most-favoured clause immediately, and publishers will be required to offer Amazon discounted prices on their books for a few years to offset the elevated prices that they'd been forced to accept under the anticompetitive regime that existed.
In reality what has happened in Europe was that Apple had to give up their most-favoured clause immediately, while Amazon got to keep theirs. And that's all that has happened.
Actually yes it is illegal and unreasonable. You can't set contract terms that prevent your competition from undercutting you with a better deal or from them being willing to make less money than you. You are in effect by establishing such a contract engaging in price fixing as you are setting a minimum price.
It's very important to understand that Apple isn't the only eBook retailer with a "Most Favored Nation" clause; both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have them as well. In fact, Amazon is far more aggressive at exercising its clause than the other two retailers. Amazon regularly scans the prices for eBooks at competitive websites and will automatically drop the price of any title that it finds lower at another site, without giving notice to the publisher (or, for a self-published eBook, the author.)
... Just getting Apple to get rid of its "Most Favored Nation" clause without doing something about Amazon and Barnes & Noble isn't going to fix the problem.
They set an artificial floor price through contracts that ensured they can't be undercut by the competition. Price fixing doesn't just refer to the actual price, it refers to setting/fixing of minimum or maximum prices in an industry as well.
Which makes Amazon just as guilty, because they use the same clause - only more bend to their favour.
If the law doesn't determine what someones fair share is, who does? You?
Yes. You're not distinguishing between the ethical notion of fairness and the legal obligation to pay your taxes
Who died and made you King of Morality? Is it just Apple who has to ask you how much they have to pay in taxes (the law be damned), or do you provide that service for other entities too, and how much (un-taxed) do you ask for that service?
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, Apple didn't really show anything very new here. Maybe the new Mac, but iOS 7 in particular is just an incremental upgrade with no big headline features like they have always had in the past.
So for years you complained about "no real multitasking" - now that its here, it's not even worth a mention.
Under the new naming convention, Apple employees will be known as Stallions, developers shall be know as Geldings, and the consumers shall be known as Mares. The apple education consumers are called Ponies.
And Apple Hater will be called asses.
Video cuts to Woz.
or adapt thunderbolt to USB 3 and take your pick of USB 3 drive.
And that's if you don't want to use one of the 4 build-in USB3 ports ;-)
If you come up with a super-efficient battery, the fact that "batteries" have been known for centuries doesn't mean that you can't get a patent - you get a patent on your improvement and it doesn't cover the original, old battery.
You mean if I improve the design of a battery, let's say by using rounded corners on it, I can patent that design?
Sure. Motorola did that. They successfully banned the sale of third party replacement batteries because they had a design patent on their phone batteries.
The odd thing about this filing are the inventors: Aaltonen; Janne; (Turku, FI) ; Saru; Sami; (Turku, FI)
Two Finns who have been in the mobile business for some time (including at Nokia), but both didn't seem to be working for Apple until very recently.
IOW nobody would even comment on this patent if Apple hadn't acquired it / the companies of the inventors.
Boy it sure is easy to "invent" stuff that other people have been doing for years. But like Microsoft, Apple's whole business model is built upon stealing other people's ideas [cough cough] Xerox Parc.
Yeah, because Xerox actually invented the GUI (hint: they didn't).
Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?
What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.
What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.
See, they even copy Chines culture.
As far as I know all other smartphones are immune to this kind of attack because they don't try to communicate with the charger. They just draw 500mA, or 1000mA if the USB data lines are shorted out. No comms at all, hence no infection vector.
The only reason this works is because Apple put DRM in their chargers to prevent people creating cheaper clones. The charger sends an ID string back, but rather than being fixed length it is null terminated so can cause a buffer overflow.
And as with most things you "know", you are wrong. http://managedsolutions.com/tag/juice-jacking/
While it sounds like a way criminals might steal electricity it is actually how criminals can use charging kiosks to install malware on your portable devices. A charging kiosk is a public resource for charging your USB capable devices such as your Android Phone or iPhone.
If anything, iPhones are actually less vulnerable because (as you keep pointing out) they don't use the standard USB for charging. Of course that isn't actually true, but mostly because you are again wrong.
It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...
So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?
Why would I waste my time - you are either a moron or a troll.
Plus enough profit to make them want to go through it all over again for the next book
There's the rub. In other words, the price *should be* what it is now.
I tell my employers what my salary "should be". They laugh.
Problem with e-publishing is that Apple and friends get most of the say-so in the "should be" .
You are at least as delusional about Apple's role in ebook pricing as you are about what you should get for your work.
Hahahahaha, you mean scanning the paper version and stuffing it into a .mobi file after some dodgy OCR?
A lot of the legitimate ebooks I've seen should be returned as unfit for purpose.
Then you shouldn't complain about price, because free would be too expensive.
You won't get any argument from me that Amazon isn't just as bad, but this isn't kindergarten and hence a valid excuse isn't "but muuuuum he did it first".
You are right, this isn't kindergarten, this is the fucking DOJ, and they shouldn't selectively prosecute in the same fucking case.
The difference is, there is no evidence Amazon was telling the publishers they couldn't sell their books cheaper elsewhere - that's the crux of the issue with the way Apple was doing it here.
Yeah, absolutely no evidence
Both Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) and Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) have agreements with those publishers that ensure they'll receive the best prices for e-books over any of their competitors, Blumenthal said in a prepared statement.
Nobody ever saw Amazon do it
An agency model combined with most-favored-nation clauses were implemented by Apple and Amazon for e-book sales
Similar models used in other markets
And Amazon most certainly doesn't have anything called "most favored nation clause" in any of their terms, only something called "price matching". https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help/search?query=price%2520matching&page=1 - it's their most favored clause in the nation.
What "most-favoured" clause of Amazon's are you talking about?
Here's the one for Kindle Direct Publishing (Search for "Matching Competitor Prices")
By "price-match" we mean where we sell the Digital Book in one or more of the Available Sales Territories at a price (net of taxes) that is below the List Price to match a third party's sales price for any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book, or to match our sales price for any physical edition of the Digital Book, in any one of the Available Sales Territories.
For non-agency titles (in other words, titles that Amazon purchases to sell under the wholesale model,) Amazon reserves the right to set and change the price as it sees fit, although it will still remit the same wholesale amount back to the publisher or author. If Amazon drops its price for a title below that of Apple or Barnes & Noble, even without the knowledge of the publisher or author, Apple and Barnes & Noble have the right to match Amazon's price.
Read that through again. The blogger you are sourcing is misrepresenting what a "Most Favored Nation" agreement is.
Bullshit. He describes how evil Amazon's version of the MFNC is. And you are to stupid/paid to tell.
Amazon regularly scans the prices for eBooks at competitive websites and will automatically drop the price of any title that it finds lower at another site, without giving notice to the publisher (or, for a self-published eBook, the author.)
Ok... can you explain how Amazon cutting their own profit is price fixing?
Did I say it was? Do you move goal posts as a profession or is it a hobby? Did you even notice I was quoting an article?
I don't think you know what a most-favoured-nation clause is.
You don't think at all it seems.
Amazon's ridiculously thin margins aren't a short-term tactic to eliminate competitors. If they were, Amazon would've started hiking up prices in things like books and videogames where they've all but eliminated the competition. Slim margins are the entire (incredibly dubious) business model, and they'll continue with that process, bringing in fractions of cents of profit per dollar of sales, indefinitely.
It ain't healthy for anybody.
So it's actually a long-term tactic to fuck over their shareholders. And I wouldn't call losing 20% on most ebook sales "slim".
If it's anything like Europe, Apple will be required to end their most-favoured clause immediately, and publishers will be required to offer Amazon discounted prices on their books for a few years to offset the elevated prices that they'd been forced to accept under the anticompetitive regime that existed.
In reality what has happened in Europe was that Apple had to give up their most-favoured clause immediately, while Amazon got to keep theirs. And that's all that has happened.
Actually yes it is illegal and unreasonable. You can't set contract terms that prevent your competition from undercutting you with a better deal or from them being willing to make less money than you. You are in effect by establishing such a contract engaging in price fixing as you are setting a minimum price.
http://feldmanfile.blogspot.de/2012/04/most-favored-nation-landmine.html
It's very important to understand that Apple isn't the only eBook retailer with a "Most Favored Nation" clause; both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have them as well. In fact, Amazon is far more aggressive at exercising its clause than the other two retailers. Amazon regularly scans the prices for eBooks at competitive websites and will automatically drop the price of any title that it finds lower at another site, without giving notice to the publisher (or, for a self-published eBook, the author.)
They set an artificial floor price through contracts that ensured they can't be undercut by the competition. Price fixing doesn't just refer to the actual price, it refers to setting/fixing of minimum or maximum prices in an industry as well.
Which makes Amazon just as guilty, because they use the same clause - only more bend to their favour.
"Technology giant Apple is to begin its defence against charges ..."
Doesn't the prosecution present their case before the defence begins?
Normally yes, but the DOJ has already presented its case to the public, and the judge has already decided. Might as well go right for the appeal.
If the law doesn't determine what someones fair share is, who does? You?
Yes. You're not distinguishing between the ethical notion of fairness and the legal obligation to pay your taxes
Who died and made you King of Morality? Is it just Apple who has to ask you how much they have to pay in taxes (the law be damned), or do you provide that service for other entities too, and how much (un-taxed) do you ask for that service?