Fix that whole "can't avoid running into stationary objects" thing already. That's the most basic requirement for non-stationary objects with any form of steering.
Well played - for those that don't know... Apple has already eyed the ad businesses, and went in boots and all - pronouncing a pending revolution in ads - it didn't end well...
About the same as my malware infested iOS. Actually, both are clean as can be because neither are jailbroken or rooted,
Boy are you stupid. You don't have to root your Android to download malware from the fucking Play Store. And the fact that Google has removed over 20% of all apps on it as malware doesn't mean there's now no more malware on it, because the makers just rename it at upload it again.
The difference is that every one of the Drivers in a HomePod is under INDIVIDUAL Computer-Control. What the Driver sends to the speaker, and WHEN, are exactly determined by the A8 microcontroller, INDIVIDUALLY, for EACH DRIVER.
THAT my friend, has never been done before.
Of course it's been done before. Do you really think Apple's going to do something innovative? That hasn't happened in well over a decade. Computer-controlled line arrays have been around for about that long.
So it has been done before - at several orders of magnitude the size and the price. Apple is such a lame company, and that certainly is not innovation.
So your complaint is that Apple isn't claiming they invented it (what you claimed in the OP), but that computer magazines think it's better than what Android offers. Is this your general befuddlement showing? Or are you just being an ass?
Yes, a rooted Android phone is susceptible to malware from 3rd-party sources, just like a jailbroken iPhone. As far as factory-configured devices, if you think the Apple store has had any less malware than the Play store, though, you're sadly mistaken.
The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.
Did the ruling say anything at all about whether or not Samsung's phones were infringing? I haven't read the ruling, but typically, the Supreme Court rules only on exactly what the appellant asks them to rule on. If Samsung only appealed how damages were determined, then that's all that the Supreme Court would address. They wouldn't say anything about infringement either way.
Ahh, so it wasn't the Supreme Court ruling that Samsung violated Apple's design patents, it was the Supreme Court ruling on Samsung's appellation which itself confirmed they needed to pay for violating Apple's design patent.
Sorry for implying it wasn't Samsung itself admitting they were guilty by going to SCOTUS in the first place.
What security you need for a phone that does nothing except tweet?
The same security you need for the phone that Obama used not to tweet on the toilet at 5 AM after checking infowars on it (did you forget the news pages?) Why should Trump be spared from the security Obama had to endure just because he doesn't feel like it?
An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week."
And:Link -
Clinton responded on March 8, 2009:
Well, I'm far more concerned that she replied in 2009 to allegations made in 2011: a sure sign of a reptilian time traveller.
The German manufacturer, Braun might like a word if it still had an independent existence. Dieter Rams their industrial designer was an inspiration to Jony Ive and in particular the rectangular device and display with rounded edges. If you have a display with rounded edges, then rounded icons are a an obvious extension.
I have always regarded Apple products – and the kind words Jony Ive has said about me and my work – as a compliment. Without doubt there are few companies in the world that genuinely understand and practise the power of good design in their products and their businesses.
The damages for the two utility infringements haven't been awarded and are not the subject of the conversation. The news here is that the courts overruled a 300 million USD damage award, saying it was too much, and the jury came back with a 500 million USD damage award.
Errm, the supreme court didn't say the ruling was to high, they said " whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant 'article of manufacture' must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that product."" - the jury decided the part of the product Samsung copied was worth only halve of of what Apple claimed. Too bad it was a little more than Samsung wanted to pay based on the price of plastic they used.
So Samsung should get over it that Apple lost, and stop being the sour winner.
The look and feel lawsuit was settled decades ago.
Apple lost.
Because the judge decided that the agreement between Apple and Microsoft that allowed Microsoft to use Apple's GUI in their programs written for Macs also allowed the to use the GUI in Windows.
They already fought it all the way up the chain. The Supreme Court overturned a previous award of $399M and sent it back to the lower court for re-adjudication, because they agreed with Samsung that the 3 design patents for minor little details like rounded corners, a screen that takes up most of the front face, and a shiny black finish were not a substantial enough part of the overall product that Apple should be entitled to their entire profits under a 19th century law intended to protect the designs of ornaments with very simple functional purpose and deriving most of their value from their ornamental design.
And the jury decided that the parts apart from everything handled by these patents are only worth a few dozens of dollars fromthe selling price of several hundred, so the rest must be the worth of these patents. Case closed.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect it's in part because Apple got caught artificially slowing down older devices
Well, that could explain why Apple still sold more phones, but not why the others sold less. Isn't planned obsolescence supposed to increase sales?
Fix that whole "can't avoid running into stationary objects" thing already. That's the most basic requirement for non-stationary objects with any form of steering.
Well played - for those that don't know... Apple has already eyed the ad businesses, and went in boots and all - pronouncing a pending revolution in ads - it didn't end well...
... because they didn't release enough personal information to the advertisers - Try to find that claim about any other ad network..
If only Apple provided some way to side-load applications...
They actually provide several, is that confusing you?
About the same as my malware infested iOS. Actually, both are clean as can be because neither are jailbroken or rooted,
Boy are you stupid. You don't have to root your Android to download malware from the fucking Play Store. And the fact that Google has removed over 20% of all apps on it as malware doesn't mean there's now no more malware on it, because the makers just rename it at upload it again.
Of course it's been done before. Do you really think Apple's going to do something innovative? That hasn't happened in well over a decade. Computer-controlled line arrays have been around for about that long.
https://loudaudio.com/martin-a...
http://www.alconsaudio.com/lin...
So it has been done before - at several orders of magnitude the size and the price. Apple is such a lame company, and that certainly is not innovation.
Or, as most of the rest of the world puts it, Apple faithful making everything Apple-centric.
If Computerworld is the Apple faithful, you are the Doomsday Cult.
So your complaint is that Apple isn't claiming they invented it (what you claimed in the OP), but that computer magazines think it's better than what Android offers. Is this your general befuddlement showing? Or are you just being an ass?
So how is your malware infested Android?
Yes, a rooted Android phone is susceptible to malware from 3rd-party sources, just like a jailbroken iPhone. As far as factory-configured devices, if you think the Apple store has had any less malware than the Play store, though, you're sadly mistaken.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Care to back up your claim?
That was my first thought. Oil doesn't cause climate change, burning oil causes climate change. So sue your own citizens?
Next stop: only throw drug users in jail, and let the drug dealers free.
Last I checked, iTunes was rated "Garbage" in Wine's AppDB.
That doesn't absolve you from checking for a Linux version - but what can one expect from a Debian Developer. Pah! Talk about Garbage indeed.
That's a lot of writing attempting to justify a bad decision.
That's a rather short post to justify a much, much worse decision. Just without any justification.
malware - never had any, ever, on android.
And you know that because? Is it because you use android instead of Android?
The locked down company that puts their profits ahead of your usage
For values of "usage" that include playing PC games remotely on a phone. Fluffy, you are a hoot and a half.
The article makes it seem like Cydia Impactor requires a $120 Windows license in which to run iTunes.
Yeah, one could get that impression if one ran Linux and didn't know about Wine - or dared to check if there's a Linux version, which there is.
The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.
Did the ruling say anything at all about whether or not Samsung's phones were infringing? I haven't read the ruling, but typically, the Supreme Court rules only on exactly what the appellant asks them to rule on. If Samsung only appealed how damages were determined, then that's all that the Supreme Court would address. They wouldn't say anything about infringement either way.
Ahh, so it wasn't the Supreme Court ruling that Samsung violated Apple's design patents, it was the Supreme Court ruling on Samsung's appellation which itself confirmed they needed to pay for violating Apple's design patent.
Sorry for implying it wasn't Samsung itself admitting they were guilty by going to SCOTUS in the first place.
This is a pure bullshit article.
What security you need for a phone that does nothing except tweet?
The same security you need for the phone that Obama used not to tweet on the toilet at 5 AM after checking infowars on it (did you forget the news pages?) Why should Trump be spared from the security Obama had to endure just because he doesn't feel like it?
An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week." And:Link - Clinton responded on March 8, 2009:
Well, I'm far more concerned that she replied in 2009 to allegations made in 2011: a sure sign of a reptilian time traveller.
The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.
The German manufacturer, Braun might like a word if it still had an independent existence. Dieter Rams their industrial designer was an inspiration to Jony Ive and in particular the rectangular device and display with rounded edges. If you have a display with rounded edges, then rounded icons are a an obvious extension.
Yawn. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/te...
Dieter Rams on Apple
I have always regarded Apple products – and the kind words Jony Ive has said about me and my work – as a compliment. Without doubt there are few companies in the world that genuinely understand and practise the power of good design in their products and their businesses.
https://www.macrumors.com/2016...
Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit
The damages for the two utility infringements haven't been awarded and are not the subject of the conversation. The news here is that the courts overruled a 300 million USD damage award, saying it was too much, and the jury came back with a 500 million USD damage award.
Errm, the supreme court didn't say the ruling was to high, they said " whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant 'article of manufacture' must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that product."" - the jury decided the part of the product Samsung copied was worth only halve of of what Apple claimed. Too bad it was a little more than Samsung wanted to pay based on the price of plastic they used.
So Samsung should get over it that Apple lost, and stop being the sour winner.
The look and feel lawsuit was settled decades ago.
Apple lost.
Because the judge decided that the agreement between Apple and Microsoft that allowed Microsoft to use Apple's GUI in their programs written for Macs also allowed the to use the GUI in Windows.
They already fought it all the way up the chain. The Supreme Court overturned a previous award of $399M and sent it back to the lower court for re-adjudication, because they agreed with Samsung that the 3 design patents for minor little details like rounded corners, a screen that takes up most of the front face, and a shiny black finish were not a substantial enough part of the overall product that Apple should be entitled to their entire profits under a 19th century law intended to protect the designs of ornaments with very simple functional purpose and deriving most of their value from their ornamental design.
And the jury decided that the parts apart from everything handled by these patents are only worth a few dozens of dollars fromthe selling price of several hundred, so the rest must be the worth of these patents. Case closed.
Don't get fooled by the figures, there is only one thing which have any value: the independent claims. How to read a patent in 60 seconds?.
Too bad his advice is completely worthless when talking about Design Patents. Note how he never mentions them?