For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children. He kept his image and his job separate from his family and his home.
He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death-- granted, with the consent of his wife (and though the article does not state this is explicitly with her consent, assuming its not is a bigger leap then assuming it is)-- but I have seen no evidence at all that his family has ever wanted to get involved in the limelight.
Steve built Apple: were it to do anything but defend him to the utmost of its ability would be nothing short of a betrayal by the company he built of the family he loved.
Sure, there are people who may want to buy a figure like this one. But it is undignified and not at all something I think Steve would want: I would be shocked if his family disagreed, and I would/expect/ Apple to do something about it.
On a technical level, the duty of the company is solely to the shareholders. But come on. Defending Steve's image and his families dignity is something they can do which is not at all devoid-of-a-soul/and/ good for their business all at the same time.
Android may have the highest market-share, but what the Article -- and several others done that have rather consistently said the same thing -- is that despite being #1 in number of phones, it has trailed significantly behind iOS in actual web browsing.
For whatever reason, though less people buy an iPhone, a significantly higher margin actually use their iOS device on the web. It is the #1 mobile platform for web browsing. Perhaps because iOS is more then iPhone by a large margin, but Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform). Perhaps its just that iPhone users do use the web more. I have no idea.
But this is not at all an isolated report in that regard. Even Google has stated that about two thirds of their mobile ad revenue comes from the iPhone.
The J2ME thing is weird though and its the first time I've heard of it showing up at all in the top lists, so I dunno what's different about this report then others.
I'm not saying the case doesn't exist, but that "no clause is valid that restricts your right to sue" doesn't seem to be accurate.
Perhaps there was something specific about the IBM case which in those specific circumstances the contract not to sue was invalid. Employment is a complex thing with a lot of laws, both federal and state, protecting and defining the relationship. Or, perhaps its the inverse, and in health care you have less rights then other places. But that seems wrong. Or, perhaps arbitration is special-cased as an alternate to suing that's just as good (though that is a joke) so it doesn't count as "restricting".
Either way though:/no clause/ is a very broad statement and seems quite demonstrably false.
Umm. I can't reconcile your claims with the fact that I know Kaiser has a binding arbitration clause that has been upheld and enforced for like two decades in California.
You can't sue Kaiser here. People have tried to get around it but the courts have rejected it.
Now, perhaps there is a difference between "you may not sue me at all" and "you may only use this alternate limited resolution system which can't be appealed and which is rather stacked heavily in Kaiser's favor" to whatever this California law is that you're citing but "no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue" seems simply factually invalid.
First, to repeat: This is not a new relationship; they are not entering a new deal. Apple is one of the largest single customers of Samsungs. Apple is, and has been, buying billions of dollars of chips from Samsung for a decade.
Apple is Samsung's second largest customer. Apple pays them to make their processors, their memory-- both DRAM and NAND-- and maybe various other components. Apple gives them billions every year: Apple, a _single_customer_ does. (Sony, fwiw, is Samsung's largest customer -- and by a pretty big margin to be fair).
There is nothing new here at all in the relationship. What's new is that Samsung made a new plant-- in the US of all places-- but they have more then one plant and can build them whereever. This is not an Apple-Samsung joint partnership. Samsung is the supplier. Apple is the customer.
This is nothing new.
Now, there is some speculation that the lawsuits may cause Apple to seek another supplier-- IS there one with enough capacity? I don't know-- but that would not at ALL be what Samsung would want. That's *billions* of sales a year lost. Their consumer electronics division may wish that Apple went poof, but their semiconductor division would be hit really, really hard by it. (Heck, I'm not exactly sure what Samsung would want out of their side of the lawsuits-- the only acceptable solution it seems to me for them would be for everyone to walk away back behind the lines and pretend none of it happened again. Any kind of injunction against Apple hurts Samsung, too. Not as bad, certainly. But still).
On to the rest of your argument-- first, the vast majority of what Samsung makes for Apple is in no way even distinct. Its stock stuff they make themselves and sell to all kinds of people, that Samsung itself owns all the rights to (or maybe licenses). This article about the A5 is distinct, sure: but only kind of. The A5 is "just" a customized Cortex A9 with a PowerVR GPU and a couple other things stuck together into a system-on-a-chip platform. Those are all licensed technology that Apple doesn't even own: though surely the combination and distinct customization's they made will be a certain amount of in-house IP that Apple will want to protect.
Except all kinds of other people are making things similar already. Including Samsung, and they've been doing it themselves longer.
Its not counter-intuitive to let someone pay me billions a year to make the things you're already making. Its not counter-intuitive to see that someone is increasing demand and wants to pay me even more billions, but my capacity is short-- so I build a new factory.
It IS a bit schizo that to one division in the company, Apple is the customer and one of the best ones at that. And yet, to another division of the company, Apple is the enemy. Its a complicated relationship, for sure. What it is not is a NEW relationship. There's way too much money on the line for them to decide 'oh no! Apple likes to sue people so we won't sell them our stuff!'
Err, Samsung has been one of Apple's major suppliers for a long time now, in the billions of dollars range. They've been making a huge chunk of the chips that go into everything for years and years-- long before any of these lawsuits started.
There's nothing counter-intuitive about it. Apple is one of Samsung's largest customers and has been for ages.
The lawsuit from Apple's side is a design issue, not functional: nearness to the product is irrelevant. They aren't suing about how chips work or are made: its design from an artistic/aesthetic POV, not design from an architectural or engineering POV, that they're suing over. (I'm not defending the lawsuits or the existence of design patents, just noting the difference)
The overhead of big charities bugs me; even if they do serve a needed purpose. Big, organized charities are important during big disasters, and don't get me wrong-- things like Red Cross and the like are important to have. But they only go so far. They help those in the most immediate, most horrible need -- but they don't seem very good at seriously improving the world. Some try, but things just get bogged down, and more then a little bit of the money just seems to go to waste despite their best efforts.
But giving a little bit of money to a lot of people and building a better world from the bottom up seems a good approach to me. I focus on women (though not exclusively), education, food/health stuff.
And better yet, its a "gift" which keeps on giving. I put a bit more money in every month or three, and everything that is returned I put back out. So the amount of money I'm loaning out is continuing to grow.
Umm. You either didn't visit the Mac App Store, or you just glanced and saw pretty pictures and let your eyes glaze over. There are numerous full applications -- and powerful ones at that -- on the store. It also has a number of small applications, and yes, a significant portion of it is games.
For developers, the primary appeal is advertising / access to users.. An online store for applications doesn't have anywhere near the access to people an "App Store" tied to a platform would have.
For users, the appeal is ease and simplicity of both getting apps and keeping them updated; they also can feel safer -- they don't have to give their credit card # to/yet another/ company, since Apple handles that and hey, they already have an Apple Account... and because the apps are screened, they are more likely to be what they claim to be and halfway functioning. I know more then a few people who are totally sold on the curated App Store model and feel very uncomfortable with buying apps from other sources now. (Yes, I know the app store review is not perfect and buggy things get through -- but rarely if ever apps that are not what they claim or are malicious).
For Apple, the appeal is the growth of the ecosystem. They get a cut of the apps, but that's largely meaningless to their bottom line -- they want their users happy. Happy users get apps they love that are of a high quality, are trivial to get, update, and delete. Happy users don't get confused about what an app does, aren't lied to about what an app does, and don't have to/worry/ about apps. Any particular itch that a happy user has, they should be able to easily find something to scratch it. Googling for something to solve their problem, trying to figure out what app is best for them, and buying/downloading/installing is a/fine/ way for people to get software -- but its not a pleasant experience.
I'm not sure what the appeal is for Microsoft, except maybe they think they want users to have a similar experience on Windows. Maybe they want it as a revenue source -- its not like Windows needs its ecosystem to grow. There are a bajillion windows apps out there to solve any random need practically. But maybe they feel they're suffering on the/experience/.
But yea, "mini-apps" and "demos"? No, lol. There are certain kinds of power-user apps you/can't/ get on the Store because of its policy limitations -- but there are a LOT of VERY powerful and VERY complete apps on there, in a wide range of categories.
Or, more often -- at least historically -- "this guy should not be punished because he's white, and he killed a nigger".
Jury nullification is an important power; its a check on Government power and authority. The government can pass all kinds of laws based on weak justification and they can be challenged only on Constitutionality and not/rightness/, and can enforce those laws in all kinds of ways; both fairly and unfairly. The People have only two direct checks on that power: the ability to vote for someone else, and the ability to nullify a law that the Government has passed by refusing to convict.
Unfortunately, its also a power which can and has been used for VERY bad reasons, and its a power which throws a wrench into the legal system itself -- so the legal system tries to steer people away from it. As it should, in my opinion. Its too easy to abuse. People can still do it, they just don't need that pointed out in every trial or forum.
Not every right needs to be stated upfront. If you're not intelligent enough to know that no matter what the Judge says, you can say "not guilty"; that no matter what the law says, you need to follow your conscience -- then I'm terribly afraid that you're probably going to say "not guilty' for the wrong reasons.
Umm, fact check: Apple doesn't even slightly rely on ads. At all. Apple is not an advertising company, at all.
They have the iAd product, which is little more then a hobby; Apple's profit is very, very clearly from direct hardware sales to customers -- by a/vast/ margin. Not from ads, ITMS, Apps, any of it. Its hardware sales to customers.
Its nothing like Google's business model.
Now, its possible Siri may be a future ad-related or information-related revenue stream, but only if it can be leveraged without harming the hardware sales-- because THAT is what Apple makes its dough on. It'll probably never be a huge deal, though it may be interesting.
Why is Siri cloud-powered? Perhaps because it has to be. Siri is a lot more then simply a speech recognition system-- even though the best speech recognition apps I've seen on IOS have also involved the cloud.
Just that alone seems to imply that it may take more processing power (and battery hogging) then mobile devices have to do well. But Siri does a lot more processing beyond that, juggling the possible recognition results based on context, thus changing its interpretation of the phrase and then re-evaluating again.
All three companies have VERY different business models.
Google relies on profits from its ad business. Apple relies on profits from its hardware sales. Microsoft relies on profits from published software.
Each has bits and pieces that go into others, but the/vast/ majority of their profits comes from their core business.
I admit to only being passingly familiar with Google and Microsoft's financials. But Apple's are very, very, very clearly oriented towards consumer hardware sales. Not ads, not music, not apps, not services. All of those things do nothing but maintain the ecosystem and thus make the devices more attractive. Apple's actual profit on them doesn't even compare to their actual driving businesses.
Windows Mobile phones were not popular in the mainstream because they frankly *sucked* to use.
Before the iPhone, there were "smartphones", but they were "geek, power user, nerd phones" -- phones that required sophistication in the user to even kind of use or understand, and even then it was a struggle. The iPhone totally changed smartphones to where the smarts didn't need to be in the users, and thus the users could leverage with minimal effort the power and ease of the platform to grow what they could do, easily.
I was a big PocketPC hopeful for awhile; I had huge hopes for Windows Mobile. It was always an utter failure, and NOT because it wasn't "cool". Apple changed the smartphone market not because of mere "coolness" or marketing, but because they changed user expectation on a broad level -- that you could pick up and simply/use/ a device as a tool with minimal understanding of how things worked, from "desktop metaphors" to filesystems to applications.
I'm not saying Apple exists in an innovation vacuum. They don't originate all or even most of their ideas, what's different about them is their focus.The focus on the regular person using their products.
I agree completely, Apple wouldn't be what they are without competition -- but I think you totally miss where "they are" and "how they got there" in your analysis. Your very understanding of/what/ they are "great" at is completely wrong. Its not "being cool". To dismiss Apple's success as mere marketing is just kinda pathetic.
I had PDA's, and Smartphones, before the iPhone. Palms, PocketPC's, Windows Moblie, others. Its laughable to read someone comparing "smartphones" pre-iPhone to post-iPhone. Apple doesn't try to be the first to do something; they try to do what they DO, right. It doesn't need to be every possible feature on a list. All that matters is that what they/can/ do, they do well. They then evolve, one thing at a time, focusing on steady improvement over a need to drastically change (much to the chargrin of pundits, who whine at the 3GS and 4S despite huge consumer appreciation). One thing at a time. Better to wait until its ready then push it out half-assed.
Leaders are rightly credited with the accomplishments of their team. Apple would be nothing without the "faceless employees", but would just the right faceless employees have come together, and excelled together without him?
Jobs cultivated a lot of very excellent lieutenants, despite (or because of) his mixture of passion and draconian habits. His lieutenants were very smart people with thoughts and opinions and could argue with him: but they better be right. That's an actual compelling environment for some types of innovative people: not all, certainly. But he gathered together people who seemed to work quite well in it, and even thrived. These, in turn, cultivated their lieutenants, and down through the company. How many companies get bogged down by bureaucracies and middle-management? You don't end up with a company like Apple without leadership from top to bottom: leadership *matters*. As much as any other single factor, I think.
Jobs has never claimed the one-man-wonder credit certain parts of the press often heaps on him; he has always praised his lieutenants and their teams by name even, publicly. Is there countless others who are not named? Well, of course. But he's always held that it was a team effort, and that the team mattered.
A) Yes. Absolutely, yes. Welcome-to-the-internet-in-your-hand-at-a-whim, yes. B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said act... because they are/kids/.
Before, we charge kid with making, distributing, or simply receiving child pornography-- this has happened several times. Kids life is ruined. Adults behave like complete idiots while pandering to idiotic voting bases. Kids get screwed, adults get re-elected. Nothing surprising.
Then FL does something vaguely sensible-- though I'd argue it needs to go farther, but be that as it may-- and I'm shocked.
Shocked that they actually did something sensible. And shocked that you seriously think teens with magic devices that have cameras and internet access at a whim aren't taking pictures of themselves doing all manner of inappropriate, immoral, illegal things and posting it all around without thinking about it.
Of course they are. They're teenagers. Were you born 30?:P
People can already "build on it", yes -- but they would have to fork it to do so, and there's a LOT of reasons why you may want to contribute upstream and not fork your own.
For one thing, if you care about whatever your project is that is using the software, you want to stay as close to the main line of development is as possible -- since its being actively developed and maintained by a paid group of people, in addition to whatever the community contributes.
For another, if you/don't/ get your change to the upstream, then that is a burden on you forever -- you will have to maintain that change as the main line evolves. Your patches won't apply cleanly forever. Now, you may just dump out a patch and move on and never upgrade, and if that's what you wanna do.. okay, fine.
There's lots and lots more. If you can't see why wanting to get your changes integrated instead of just forking your own isn't desirable, well... okay whatever:)
The "covenant" here means that the company is promising something to you in exchange for requiring you assign copyright. Its up to you to decide if the value proposition there is worth it to you -- most other contributor agreements I've seen in the past I thought were kinda greedy (unless it was to a neutral/Open-Source organization such as Python or Apache which I could rely on to not go private), since it was always one-way. This is at least something, and I'm not sure what want more of if I were negotiating -- they couldn't realistically promise my lines be open forever, as code evolves a lot more organically then that.
A promise to either release it all permissively, so/anyone/ who contributed -- be they commercial interests (remember, some of these "contributors" aren't Open Source people per se, who care about GPL or BSD or whatever, but are companies who may use that software and are contributing to the platform) or open source users can use it how they like.... or to support and maintain it for three years after their last accepted contribution (during which you're free to fork), seems a pretty decent compromise to me.
Yes, you can do this, mostly. You don't even need Lion Server unless you want a few of the server apps -- which for a home, I don't see anyone caring about. The mac mini servers very very well as a strong little server in a house, despite its cuteness factor. You can enable remote desktop easily, and there's numerous clients for iPad + iPhone (iTeleport being my favorite by far) that work very well with it.
Apple TV can stream from it fine -- now,/currently/ its not so easily to access / stream content various iOS devices from servers / macs sitting around, so going form mac mini -> iPad for instance isn't actually all that easy, except through syncing and the like. But I think this is being addressed in IOS5; through both AirPlay and the demotion of Macs-as-hubs to just-another-client, wifi syncing and streaming and the like.
Perhaps, except I don't see the "Mac Home Server" as a/server/ thing, per se. A lot of what makes the Mac/PC useful is that it is *different* to use then a fundamentally touch-based device. Apple has gone all-in on "Touch", where Microsoft swears they can make a compelling experience that combines both touch and "traditional" computing -- Apple believes you can't mix the two. You do one or the other, and to try to mix weakens both.
We'll see who turns up being right -- Windows 8 will be interesting.
But: for many households, I admit a sort of "home server" may be all a family needs with some iDevices -- except recent stuff Apple is doing is going away from that need, since "Macs" used to fill in that role. The Mac is near to being demoted from being a central hub to being just another client -- and this is a good thing for both Macs and iDevices.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of 'home server', but I don't see it being a Mac device and I don't see it doing Remote Desktop remote control; instead I see it as a sort of dedicated iAppliance -- in fact, I always sorta thought Apple TV would morph into something like that, until it became a thin client in Gen2. You/can/ do RD from an iPad/iPhone -- and its even usable -- but its not a good experience for what you really need a Mac for. Its good in a pinch, not as a staple of use.
I think anyone who would really want to use a Mac for anything even kind of would not be satisfied with an iDevice remote-desktop client to some mac server. You'd need some sort of serious dock and a nice big screen before that'd even be okay -- and by then, just get an iMac already.:)
Except from what I've heard -- though I admit I do not pay a lot of attention to HP news -- their PC business has been struggling for a few years now. Slow growth, low profit-- maybe not no profit, again I'm not entirely up to date on HP news. So that's not at all the same thing: Apple's Mac division is HUGELY profitable and growing steadily.
But even so: yes, this whole HP thing strikes me as astonishingly stupid.
Right, because Apple is going to get rid of a *growing* and *extremely profitable* portion of their business -- the Mac / computer business -- to.. uh.. what?
Lock people into a walled garden? Why?
Hint: That garden does not make them that much money. Yes, sure, they profit off of it. But take all of the money they make off of iTunes, off of iBooks, off of Apps, and any other software or services they make or offer -- take all of it and put it in a pile... and it doesn't even KIND OF approach the pile that Macs make.
Granted: iDevices make an even bigger pile, but that doesn't mean the Mac pile is some small, or that its not making record profits on its own all the time.
But Apple sells products. The "walled garden" and the software/content ecosystem is to support those products, not an end to itself. These "rumors" that you mention are nothing but random people talking out of their ass.
If/when the Mac business stops growing -- again, it is GROWING -- maybe they'll think about dumping it for some kind of even bigger iDevice... thing. Except I have no idea what that would be like. But people still want Apple computers: and they want them more and more. iDevices aren't computers, and while Apple speaks of the "post-pc" universe, and says that for many users in many uses, an iPad actually may be/better/ -- that doesn't mean there isn't a huge and profitable market for PCs.
You couldn't take someone who wanted a Mac, MacBook Air, MacMini or any of them and convince many of them to buy an iDevice instead -- they're different products, for different needs.
Macs aren't like iPods which are a declining (but still significant) market for them due to the iPhone being an seamless replacement (except for those with huge music libraries) -- iPod's have been on the steady but slight decline for awhile now. Macs aren't. They're _growing_ still: and they aren't growing out of the red, they're growing years and years past the very solid green and increasing the rate in which that pile of green comes in. Businesses deciding to shut down divisions that make steadily increasing amounts of *profit* every quarter, including record profits during recessions, is kinda beyond stupid to even suggest.
The point is the scientists look at the evidence and come up with new theories.
The religious and political groups look at the exact same evidence, in the exact same scenario, and lie. Its not an attack against the religious: its that the religious react to the exact same evidence with attacks on the scientists character and spouting grand conspiracy theories, and arguing their point with grand handwaving and nothing else.
Religion isn't incompatible with science; but where religion meets politics, science becomes anathema as it represents reason and questioning where only the absolute acceptance of presumed fact is allowed. Even if that "fact" is totally, utterly, completely devoid from any reality.
And the "fact" I speak not is of religion -- you can be fully religious and very plausibily support scientific understanding. But you can't be a religious-political nutjob and be able to actually read english (especially the Constitution).
"Politics and religion" are mutating to become this hybrid monstrosity in the United States at least, where actual rational thought is a simply Wrong. That is a completley different thing then Religion by itself, which has its components of faith -- but many, many, many, MANY scientists have been able to easily reconcile faith and science.
But mix politics into religion, and religion becomes tainted -- you don't believe in "climate change" but not because of faith, or anything religious. Anything scientific is anti-faith, period. And/power/ drives the whole movement at that point-- because there is no point to politics but power-- so with religion driving, and politics directing, ignorance becomes a virtue.
Its not anti-religion to be worried about that. All religion isn't bad. The merger of religion with politics in our system, where any evidence-based scientific development is simply flatly assumed to be a lie -- THAT is a problem.
Religion doesn't have to be anti-science, or vice-versa.
Its hidden in that normal users don't go into/System. They find apps in/Applications, certain system utilities and diag tools for advanced users in/Applications/Utilities, but/System is not a user-oriened place to go.
Its "hidden" like if Microsoft put a useful app in C:\Windows or even C:\Windows\system23 which was not accessible in he Start Menu, Control Panel, Administrative Tools, or normal places people expect to go to find things./System is not aggressively hidden, but it is not in an reality "in plain sight".
Er, one correction: it only matters if they had a search warrent and/forced the search/.
Police, investigators, anyone, are entirely within their rights to ask to search anything even if they have no right to demand a search.
Public or private. Someone can walk up to your door and say, "I think my kid is in your house, can I look around?"
They are under no obligation to prove any level of valid basis for that assertion -- if they ask you for permission and you say yes, they can search your house. Because you are letting them.
Police can say, "Mind if I come in, ma'am?" And you let them in, and they look around in plain sight and find something and you get arrested. That isn't a violation of the 4th amendment, even if they had no solid reason to ask -- the very fact that they ASKED and you GAVE PERMISSION changes the whole question.
You're right: it doesn't matter if they were SFPD, or SSFPD, or anyone else-- if they had a warrent they were legally in the right. BUT. The thing is, everything I've read about this has said this guy/gave permission/ to search. So at that point, it could have been ANYONE, in ANY jurisdiction. Now, some have said that there were threats and that the people asking for permission were threatening to involve INS -- and if thats true, a Judge may find that the permisssion was under duress. But, otherwise,
A search warrent is important, yes. For the governemnt to mandate a search requires one, and what "government" means there can vary depending on jurisdiction... If one exists, all this whining doesn't matter. BUT. That is not at all the story I've heard about this situation: there needs be no search warrent if one willingly grants access to their premesis.
If any random dude asks "Can I search your house for the color pink?" and you let them, they are in no way shape or form susceptible to any constitutional challenges on the "search". Random dude can be a cop, or a homeless guy wandering past-- if you consent to them wandering around your house, so be it.
The question is: did the party misrepresent the situation, and essentially deceive the homeowner about who it is is asking to search, and who is actually searching? Its a crime to pretend to be a police officer; but if a police officer asks if their technicians can look around and you are in no way obligated to obey, there is no force-- and though you may be confused on who 'technician' is and who they work for-- it is NOT the same thing as Apple forcing their way in and demanding to search the house.
In the end, the dude seems like he gave permission for a search. Maybe he was not entirely aware enough as he should have been. But his choices are his choices.
Some people have suggested Google of doing bad things with its search/ad business, but I don't know specifics to really comment.
Microsoft? I don't think they are anymore.
It depends on exactly what they're doing and what you mean by "leveraging": its not illegal for a monopoly to grow their business into new areas, every business wants to do that.
Its illegal for them to use their monopoly in such a way that they get an unfair edge in this new market, _because_ of that monopoly. I am not really aware of any leveraging Microsoft is really doing anymore with regards to Windows and Office: they're leveraging a cash pile and filling up standards bodies to manipulate the hell out of them, and while that may be unethical, I don't really think its antitrust-liable. IANAL. But Windows? Besides that Office for the Mac is inferior and so the only 'real' version of office runs on Windows, that's not really leveraging in the way that matters I think -- a company has no obligation to write software for alternate platforms.
The classic example of "leveraging a monopoly to build another" is the OEM Windows licensing deals Microsoft made. Nearly everyone wanted Windows, but to be price-competitive, OEM's needed to get a special price from Microsoft to do it. If they didn't, they would simply not be able to do business, period. So Microsoft wrote into the contracts rules that forbade the OEM's from installing Netscape on the computers, even though customers arguably wanted it, and then other rules that forbade OEM's from offering 'bare' machines or say, machines with Linux on them. So no matter what, every single machine paid Microsoft a few bucks, even if Windows was never on it at all. And when Microsoft wanted to beat Netscape, suddenly OEM's that previously were bundling Netscape no longer were allowed to, no matter what customers preferred.
Is MS doing anything like that these days? I'm not really aware of it, but I may not have been paying attention. The OOXML joke of a process and other lobbying-related marketing effects are the most recent nasty I remember them doing, but none of that is illegal according to Antitrust and competition laws, IIUC.
Google... has perhaps what amounts to a monopoly in ads, perhaps; I'm not sure if people can do business and ignore adsense and survive. And some have accused that their search rankings unfairly bias towards their own services, which could I suppose be claimed is using one monopoly to leverage into another. But, I dunno for sure.
Its easier to point out when stuff firmly is/not/, then it is to be sure if it/is/.:)
First: being a monopoly is not illegal. Its the goal of every business to get there. Once you get there (and in certain/very limited/ circumstances, how you get there) then maybe you have to take care with what you do, or you may run afoul of Antitrust laws.
However. That said: even assuming your first assertion is correct, that Apple had a monopoly of iPod (and I don't actually, at all, think you're right on that at all -- a monopoly means there is no real choice, not that everyone has chosen your product. There is a very big difference, and if you can't see the difference then this discussion is pointless. Successfully beating your competitors does not a monopoly make, and there was never any shortage of MP3 players)... even if your assertion was true, what followed with the iTMS is NOT an example of a monopoly being leveraged to take another market unfairly.
Its simply *not*. It would not in any way run afoul of antitrust laws.
Apple was under absolutely no obligation to license FairPlay. That they did not do so meant that content purchased via iTMS was indeed locked into their own devices-- but there is nothing actually illegal about vendor lock-in and proprietary formats. The iPod was perfectly capable of playing MP3s you bought from other services. You were able to quite readily and easily use content obtained from any other service (unless said other service encrypted it: but that's them being monopolists according to you) on the iPod.
There's many excellent reasons to avoid vendor lock-in and proprietary formats, especially in situations like Government, but there's nothing wrong with a company doing it, from a legal or antitrust standpoint. My Kindle books can only be read on my Amazon-provided apps, for instance. And Amazon is biggest book seller in the world (I don't actually know that as a fact, it may be hyperbole on my part), but that does not mean there is any monopoly-ness anywhere around what they're doing either.
The iPad isn't a monopoly, either, though its damn close: but its too new of a market for you to use words like 'monopoly', and there's active competition going on still, and people have choice. The non-iPad choices just suck at the moment, so no one is choosing to buy them.
You seem to confuse "success" with "monopoly": they simply are not the same thing. Even being a monopoly is not illegal, and is not actionable. Its only *certain, specific proscribed* types of behavior that is deemed "anti-competitive" and "restraint of trade", that *remove* consumer choice or manipulate prices through collusion and the like, that's illegal.
The App Store is an argument you can make, but you'd have to somehow define the market very narrowly -- and you'd fail, I bet. Psystar tried to define "Mac" as a market unto itself and thus declare Apple a monopoly, and that didn't fly. As long as developers can write for multiple platforms, and as long as customers can choose multiple platforms, and ESPECIALLY as long as the iPhone isn't even a majority platform, you'll never succeed in arguing Apple's control of the app store is a "monopoly", and even if it IS, that is NOT ILLEGAL.
Apple has a tightly integrated series of products, and it is designed in such a way that once you buy one of their products, the value proposition of the others increases. As you buy a second, your first becomes more useful and valuable to you. As you add more (be it an Apple product, iTunes content, Apps or what not), the value continues to increase: and as one wears down, the value of a competitors product is lower then replacing it with an Apple, because your new device won't fit into the synergistic ecosystem you've got going.
That's not monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior: that's good business. At no stage there did you, the consumer, get forced to choose the Apple device: at no stage there were you unable to use a competitors device. You can buy an Android phone and use it instead of the iPhone, you can use a Zune and even be proud
Um. Because monopoly doesn't even kind of mean what you seem to think it means.
Apple isn't even close to a monopoly in either of its two biggest market-share products, iPod (75% I think?) and ITMS (largest single music seller, though I don't know what % that is). There are countless viable substitutions people can buy if they want to. There is no coercive force in play making it so you need to or must buy their products (compare and contrast this to Microsoft during its monopolist days, where it was incredibly difficult to buy a new computer without paying Microsoft a fee, and with any competitors software pre-installed).
Yes, its a vertically-integrated product line, but that is NOT the same thing as having a monopoly. "iPhone" is not the whole of a market, it is but one of a number of viable competitors. The App Store may be the only way to get native apps onto the device, but that doesn't mean Apple has an "iPhone monopoly" they are abusing to extend one market into another. The iPhone is not a market: there is plenty of choice out there for those who want to buy something else.
Monopolies are not illegal: only monopolies obtained or maintained through certain prohibited practices (which for single firms and not cartels are rather few and hard to prove: but you can't argue Apple with its industry-envied margins is engaging in predatory pricing, which is one of the things single firms can get bitten for doing under antitrust law), and using the power of a monopoly in one market to extend into another.
In no way does Apple fit into any of these categories (the only place you could even argue it is the App Store and its relationship to the iphone, except as Android supporters will tell you, iPhone is anything but a monopoly. You have to have a monopoly before you can use a monopoly to bad ends: and "monopoly" does not translate into, "the only person to make this particular thing that others are aggressively competiting with", even if "this particular thing" is the what you're making your addons for).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't fathom how you would find it weird.
For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children. He kept his image and his job separate from his family and his home.
He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death-- granted, with the consent of his wife (and though the article does not state this is explicitly with her consent, assuming its not is a bigger leap then assuming it is)-- but I have seen no evidence at all that his family has ever wanted to get involved in the limelight.
Steve built Apple: were it to do anything but defend him to the utmost of its ability would be nothing short of a betrayal by the company he built of the family he loved.
Sure, there are people who may want to buy a figure like this one. But it is undignified and not at all something I think Steve would want: I would be shocked if his family disagreed, and I would /expect/ Apple to do something about it.
On a technical level, the duty of the company is solely to the shareholders. But come on. Defending Steve's image and his families dignity is something they can do which is not at all devoid-of-a-soul /and/ good for their business all at the same time.
Android may have the highest market-share, but what the Article -- and several others done that have rather consistently said the same thing -- is that despite being #1 in number of phones, it has trailed significantly behind iOS in actual web browsing.
For whatever reason, though less people buy an iPhone, a significantly higher margin actually use their iOS device on the web. It is the #1 mobile platform for web browsing. Perhaps because iOS is more then iPhone by a large margin, but Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform). Perhaps its just that iPhone users do use the web more. I have no idea.
But this is not at all an isolated report in that regard. Even Google has stated that about two thirds of their mobile ad revenue comes from the iPhone.
The J2ME thing is weird though and its the first time I've heard of it showing up at all in the top lists, so I dunno what's different about this report then others.
I'm not saying the case doesn't exist, but that "no clause is valid that restricts your right to sue" doesn't seem to be accurate.
Perhaps there was something specific about the IBM case which in those specific circumstances the contract not to sue was invalid. Employment is a complex thing with a lot of laws, both federal and state, protecting and defining the relationship. Or, perhaps its the inverse, and in health care you have less rights then other places. But that seems wrong. Or, perhaps arbitration is special-cased as an alternate to suing that's just as good (though that is a joke) so it doesn't count as "restricting".
Either way though: /no clause/ is a very broad statement and seems quite demonstrably false.
Umm. I can't reconcile your claims with the fact that I know Kaiser has a binding arbitration clause that has been upheld and enforced for like two decades in California.
You can't sue Kaiser here. People have tried to get around it but the courts have rejected it.
Now, perhaps there is a difference between "you may not sue me at all" and "you may only use this alternate limited resolution system which can't be appealed and which is rather stacked heavily in Kaiser's favor" to whatever this California law is that you're citing but "no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue" seems simply factually invalid.
First, to repeat: This is not a new relationship; they are not entering a new deal. Apple is one of the largest single customers of Samsungs. Apple is, and has been, buying billions of dollars of chips from Samsung for a decade.
Apple is Samsung's second largest customer. Apple pays them to make their processors, their memory-- both DRAM and NAND-- and maybe various other components. Apple gives them billions every year: Apple, a _single_customer_ does. (Sony, fwiw, is Samsung's largest customer -- and by a pretty big margin to be fair).
There is nothing new here at all in the relationship. What's new is that Samsung made a new plant-- in the US of all places-- but they have more then one plant and can build them whereever. This is not an Apple-Samsung joint partnership. Samsung is the supplier. Apple is the customer.
This is nothing new.
Now, there is some speculation that the lawsuits may cause Apple to seek another supplier-- IS there one with enough capacity? I don't know-- but that would not at ALL be what Samsung would want. That's *billions* of sales a year lost. Their consumer electronics division may wish that Apple went poof, but their semiconductor division would be hit really, really hard by it. (Heck, I'm not exactly sure what Samsung would want out of their side of the lawsuits-- the only acceptable solution it seems to me for them would be for everyone to walk away back behind the lines and pretend none of it happened again. Any kind of injunction against Apple hurts Samsung, too. Not as bad, certainly. But still).
On to the rest of your argument-- first, the vast majority of what Samsung makes for Apple is in no way even distinct. Its stock stuff they make themselves and sell to all kinds of people, that Samsung itself owns all the rights to (or maybe licenses). This article about the A5 is distinct, sure: but only kind of. The A5 is "just" a customized Cortex A9 with a PowerVR GPU and a couple other things stuck together into a system-on-a-chip platform. Those are all licensed technology that Apple doesn't even own: though surely the combination and distinct customization's they made will be a certain amount of in-house IP that Apple will want to protect.
Except all kinds of other people are making things similar already. Including Samsung, and they've been doing it themselves longer.
Its not counter-intuitive to let someone pay me billions a year to make the things you're already making. Its not counter-intuitive to see that someone is increasing demand and wants to pay me even more billions, but my capacity is short-- so I build a new factory.
It IS a bit schizo that to one division in the company, Apple is the customer and one of the best ones at that. And yet, to another division of the company, Apple is the enemy. Its a complicated relationship, for sure. What it is not is a NEW relationship. There's way too much money on the line for them to decide 'oh no! Apple likes to sue people so we won't sell them our stuff!'
I don't know why I'm replying to an AC, but--
Err, Samsung has been one of Apple's major suppliers for a long time now, in the billions of dollars range. They've been making a huge chunk of the chips that go into everything for years and years-- long before any of these lawsuits started.
There's nothing counter-intuitive about it. Apple is one of Samsung's largest customers and has been for ages.
The lawsuit from Apple's side is a design issue, not functional: nearness to the product is irrelevant. They aren't suing about how chips work or are made: its design from an artistic/aesthetic POV, not design from an architectural or engineering POV, that they're suing over. (I'm not defending the lawsuits or the existence of design patents, just noting the difference)
I do really like Kiva.
The overhead of big charities bugs me; even if they do serve a needed purpose. Big, organized charities are important during big disasters, and don't get me wrong-- things like Red Cross and the like are important to have. But they only go so far. They help those in the most immediate, most horrible need -- but they don't seem very good at seriously improving the world. Some try, but things just get bogged down, and more then a little bit of the money just seems to go to waste despite their best efforts.
But giving a little bit of money to a lot of people and building a better world from the bottom up seems a good approach to me. I focus on women (though not exclusively), education, food/health stuff.
And better yet, its a "gift" which keeps on giving. I put a bit more money in every month or three, and everything that is returned I put back out. So the amount of money I'm loaning out is continuing to grow.
Umm. You either didn't visit the Mac App Store, or you just glanced and saw pretty pictures and let your eyes glaze over. There are numerous full applications -- and powerful ones at that -- on the store. It also has a number of small applications, and yes, a significant portion of it is games.
For developers, the primary appeal is advertising / access to users.. An online store for applications doesn't have anywhere near the access to people an "App Store" tied to a platform would have.
For users, the appeal is ease and simplicity of both getting apps and keeping them updated; they also can feel safer -- they don't have to give their credit card # to /yet another/ company, since Apple handles that and hey, they already have an Apple Account... and because the apps are screened, they are more likely to be what they claim to be and halfway functioning. I know more then a few people who are totally sold on the curated App Store model and feel very uncomfortable with buying apps from other sources now. (Yes, I know the app store review is not perfect and buggy things get through -- but rarely if ever apps that are not what they claim or are malicious).
For Apple, the appeal is the growth of the ecosystem. They get a cut of the apps, but that's largely meaningless to their bottom line -- they want their users happy. Happy users get apps they love that are of a high quality, are trivial to get, update, and delete. Happy users don't get confused about what an app does, aren't lied to about what an app does, and don't have to /worry/ about apps. Any particular itch that a happy user has, they should be able to easily find something to scratch it. Googling for something to solve their problem, trying to figure out what app is best for them, and buying/downloading/installing is a /fine/ way for people to get software -- but its not a pleasant experience.
I'm not sure what the appeal is for Microsoft, except maybe they think they want users to have a similar experience on Windows. Maybe they want it as a revenue source -- its not like Windows needs its ecosystem to grow. There are a bajillion windows apps out there to solve any random need practically. But maybe they feel they're suffering on the /experience/.
But yea, "mini-apps" and "demos"? No, lol. There are certain kinds of power-user apps you /can't/ get on the Store because of its policy limitations -- but there are a LOT of VERY powerful and VERY complete apps on there, in a wide range of categories.
And a crapton of games, yes.
Or, more often -- at least historically -- "this guy should not be punished because he's white, and he killed a nigger".
Jury nullification is an important power; its a check on Government power and authority. The government can pass all kinds of laws based on weak justification and they can be challenged only on Constitutionality and not /rightness/, and can enforce those laws in all kinds of ways; both fairly and unfairly. The People have only two direct checks on that power: the ability to vote for someone else, and the ability to nullify a law that the Government has passed by refusing to convict.
Unfortunately, its also a power which can and has been used for VERY bad reasons, and its a power which throws a wrench into the legal system itself -- so the legal system tries to steer people away from it. As it should, in my opinion. Its too easy to abuse. People can still do it, they just don't need that pointed out in every trial or forum.
Not every right needs to be stated upfront. If you're not intelligent enough to know that no matter what the Judge says, you can say "not guilty"; that no matter what the law says, you need to follow your conscience -- then I'm terribly afraid that you're probably going to say "not guilty' for the wrong reasons.
Umm, fact check: Apple doesn't even slightly rely on ads. At all. Apple is not an advertising company, at all.
They have the iAd product, which is little more then a hobby; Apple's profit is very, very clearly from direct hardware sales to customers -- by a /vast/ margin. Not from ads, ITMS, Apps, any of it. Its hardware sales to customers.
Its nothing like Google's business model.
Now, its possible Siri may be a future ad-related or information-related revenue stream, but only if it can be leveraged without harming the hardware sales-- because THAT is what Apple makes its dough on. It'll probably never be a huge deal, though it may be interesting.
Why is Siri cloud-powered? Perhaps because it has to be. Siri is a lot more then simply a speech recognition system-- even though the best speech recognition apps I've seen on IOS have also involved the cloud.
Just that alone seems to imply that it may take more processing power (and battery hogging) then mobile devices have to do well. But Siri does a lot more processing beyond that, juggling the possible recognition results based on context, thus changing its interpretation of the phrase and then re-evaluating again.
All three companies have VERY different business models.
Google relies on profits from its ad business.
Apple relies on profits from its hardware sales.
Microsoft relies on profits from published software.
Each has bits and pieces that go into others, but the /vast/ majority of their profits comes from their core business.
I admit to only being passingly familiar with Google and Microsoft's financials. But Apple's are very, very, very clearly oriented towards consumer hardware sales. Not ads, not music, not apps, not services. All of those things do nothing but maintain the ecosystem and thus make the devices more attractive. Apple's actual profit on them doesn't even compare to their actual driving businesses.
Bullshit.
Windows Mobile phones were not popular in the mainstream because they frankly *sucked* to use.
Before the iPhone, there were "smartphones", but they were "geek, power user, nerd phones" -- phones that required sophistication in the user to even kind of use or understand, and even then it was a struggle. The iPhone totally changed smartphones to where the smarts didn't need to be in the users, and thus the users could leverage with minimal effort the power and ease of the platform to grow what they could do, easily.
I was a big PocketPC hopeful for awhile; I had huge hopes for Windows Mobile. It was always an utter failure, and NOT because it wasn't "cool". Apple changed the smartphone market not because of mere "coolness" or marketing, but because they changed user expectation on a broad level -- that you could pick up and simply /use/ a device as a tool with minimal understanding of how things worked, from "desktop metaphors" to filesystems to applications.
I'm not saying Apple exists in an innovation vacuum. They don't originate all or even most of their ideas, what's different about them is their focus.The focus on the regular person using their products.
I agree completely, Apple wouldn't be what they are without competition -- but I think you totally miss where "they are" and "how they got there" in your analysis. Your very understanding of /what/ they are "great" at is completely wrong. Its not "being cool". To dismiss Apple's success as mere marketing is just kinda pathetic.
I had PDA's, and Smartphones, before the iPhone. Palms, PocketPC's, Windows Moblie, others. Its laughable to read someone comparing "smartphones" pre-iPhone to post-iPhone. Apple doesn't try to be the first to do something; they try to do what they DO, right. It doesn't need to be every possible feature on a list. All that matters is that what they /can/ do, they do well. They then evolve, one thing at a time, focusing on steady improvement over a need to drastically change (much to the chargrin of pundits, who whine at the 3GS and 4S despite huge consumer appreciation). One thing at a time. Better to wait until its ready then push it out half-assed.
Leaders are rightly credited with the accomplishments of their team. Apple would be nothing without the "faceless employees", but would just the right faceless employees have come together, and excelled together without him?
Jobs cultivated a lot of very excellent lieutenants, despite (or because of) his mixture of passion and draconian habits. His lieutenants were very smart people with thoughts and opinions and could argue with him: but they better be right. That's an actual compelling environment for some types of innovative people: not all, certainly. But he gathered together people who seemed to work quite well in it, and even thrived. These, in turn, cultivated their lieutenants, and down through the company. How many companies get bogged down by bureaucracies and middle-management? You don't end up with a company like Apple without leadership from top to bottom: leadership *matters*. As much as any other single factor, I think.
Jobs has never claimed the one-man-wonder credit certain parts of the press often heaps on him; he has always praised his lieutenants and their teams by name even, publicly. Is there countless others who are not named? Well, of course. But he's always held that it was a team effort, and that the team mattered.
Uh, its kinda weird that it has to be said but...
A) Yes. Absolutely, yes. Welcome-to-the-internet-in-your-hand-at-a-whim, yes. /kids/.
B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said act... because they are
Before, we charge kid with making, distributing, or simply receiving child pornography-- this has happened several times. Kids life is ruined. Adults behave like complete idiots while pandering to idiotic voting bases. Kids get screwed, adults get re-elected. Nothing surprising.
Then FL does something vaguely sensible-- though I'd argue it needs to go farther, but be that as it may-- and I'm shocked.
Shocked that they actually did something sensible. And shocked that you seriously think teens with magic devices that have cameras and internet access at a whim aren't taking pictures of themselves doing all manner of inappropriate, immoral, illegal things and posting it all around without thinking about it.
Of course they are. They're teenagers. Were you born 30? :P
People can already "build on it", yes -- but they would have to fork it to do so, and there's a LOT of reasons why you may want to contribute upstream and not fork your own.
For one thing, if you care about whatever your project is that is using the software, you want to stay as close to the main line of development is as possible -- since its being actively developed and maintained by a paid group of people, in addition to whatever the community contributes.
For another, if you /don't/ get your change to the upstream, then that is a burden on you forever -- you will have to maintain that change as the main line evolves. Your patches won't apply cleanly forever. Now, you may just dump out a patch and move on and never upgrade, and if that's what you wanna do.. okay, fine.
There's lots and lots more. If you can't see why wanting to get your changes integrated instead of just forking your own isn't desirable, well... okay whatever :)
The "covenant" here means that the company is promising something to you in exchange for requiring you assign copyright. Its up to you to decide if the value proposition there is worth it to you -- most other contributor agreements I've seen in the past I thought were kinda greedy (unless it was to a neutral/Open-Source organization such as Python or Apache which I could rely on to not go private), since it was always one-way. This is at least something, and I'm not sure what want more of if I were negotiating -- they couldn't realistically promise my lines be open forever, as code evolves a lot more organically then that.
A promise to either release it all permissively, so /anyone/ who contributed -- be they commercial interests (remember, some of these "contributors" aren't Open Source people per se, who care about GPL or BSD or whatever, but are companies who may use that software and are contributing to the platform) or open source users can use it how they like.... or to support and maintain it for three years after their last accepted contribution (during which you're free to fork), seems a pretty decent compromise to me.
Yes, you can do this, mostly. You don't even need Lion Server unless you want a few of the server apps -- which for a home, I don't see anyone caring about. The mac mini servers very very well as a strong little server in a house, despite its cuteness factor. You can enable remote desktop easily, and there's numerous clients for iPad + iPhone (iTeleport being my favorite by far) that work very well with it.
Apple TV can stream from it fine -- now, /currently/ its not so easily to access / stream content various iOS devices from servers / macs sitting around, so going form mac mini -> iPad for instance isn't actually all that easy, except through syncing and the like. But I think this is being addressed in IOS5; through both AirPlay and the demotion of Macs-as-hubs to just-another-client, wifi syncing and streaming and the like.
Perhaps, except I don't see the "Mac Home Server" as a /server/ thing, per se. A lot of what makes the Mac/PC useful is that it is *different* to use then a fundamentally touch-based device. Apple has gone all-in on "Touch", where Microsoft swears they can make a compelling experience that combines both touch and "traditional" computing -- Apple believes you can't mix the two. You do one or the other, and to try to mix weakens both.
We'll see who turns up being right -- Windows 8 will be interesting.
But: for many households, I admit a sort of "home server" may be all a family needs with some iDevices -- except recent stuff Apple is doing is going away from that need, since "Macs" used to fill in that role. The Mac is near to being demoted from being a central hub to being just another client -- and this is a good thing for both Macs and iDevices.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of 'home server', but I don't see it being a Mac device and I don't see it doing Remote Desktop remote control; instead I see it as a sort of dedicated iAppliance -- in fact, I always sorta thought Apple TV would morph into something like that, until it became a thin client in Gen2. You /can/ do RD from an iPad/iPhone -- and its even usable -- but its not a good experience for what you really need a Mac for. Its good in a pinch, not as a staple of use.
I think anyone who would really want to use a Mac for anything even kind of would not be satisfied with an iDevice remote-desktop client to some mac server. You'd need some sort of serious dock and a nice big screen before that'd even be okay -- and by then, just get an iMac already. :)
Yes, like HP.
Except from what I've heard -- though I admit I do not pay a lot of attention to HP news -- their PC business has been struggling for a few years now. Slow growth, low profit-- maybe not no profit, again I'm not entirely up to date on HP news. So that's not at all the same thing: Apple's Mac division is HUGELY profitable and growing steadily.
But even so: yes, this whole HP thing strikes me as astonishingly stupid.
Right, because Apple is going to get rid of a *growing* and *extremely profitable* portion of their business -- the Mac / computer business -- to.. uh.. what?
Lock people into a walled garden? Why?
Hint: That garden does not make them that much money. Yes, sure, they profit off of it. But take all of the money they make off of iTunes, off of iBooks, off of Apps, and any other software or services they make or offer -- take all of it and put it in a pile... and it doesn't even KIND OF approach the pile that Macs make.
Granted: iDevices make an even bigger pile, but that doesn't mean the Mac pile is some small, or that its not making record profits on its own all the time.
But Apple sells products. The "walled garden" and the software/content ecosystem is to support those products, not an end to itself. These "rumors" that you mention are nothing but random people talking out of their ass.
If/when the Mac business stops growing -- again, it is GROWING -- maybe they'll think about dumping it for some kind of even bigger iDevice... thing. Except I have no idea what that would be like. But people still want Apple computers: and they want them more and more. iDevices aren't computers, and while Apple speaks of the "post-pc" universe, and says that for many users in many uses, an iPad actually may be /better/ -- that doesn't mean there isn't a huge and profitable market for PCs.
You couldn't take someone who wanted a Mac, MacBook Air, MacMini or any of them and convince many of them to buy an iDevice instead -- they're different products, for different needs.
Macs aren't like iPods which are a declining (but still significant) market for them due to the iPhone being an seamless replacement (except for those with huge music libraries) -- iPod's have been on the steady but slight decline for awhile now. Macs aren't. They're _growing_ still: and they aren't growing out of the red, they're growing years and years past the very solid green and increasing the rate in which that pile of green comes in. Businesses deciding to shut down divisions that make steadily increasing amounts of *profit* every quarter, including record profits during recessions, is kinda beyond stupid to even suggest.
I think you're missing the point.
The point is the scientists look at the evidence and come up with new theories.
The religious and political groups look at the exact same evidence, in the exact same scenario, and lie. Its not an attack against the religious: its that the religious react to the exact same evidence with attacks on the scientists character and spouting grand conspiracy theories, and arguing their point with grand handwaving and nothing else.
Religion isn't incompatible with science; but where religion meets politics, science becomes anathema as it represents reason and questioning where only the absolute acceptance of presumed fact is allowed. Even if that "fact" is totally, utterly, completely devoid from any reality.
And the "fact" I speak not is of religion -- you can be fully religious and very plausibily support scientific understanding. But you can't be a religious-political nutjob and be able to actually read english (especially the Constitution).
"Politics and religion" are mutating to become this hybrid monstrosity in the United States at least, where actual rational thought is a simply Wrong. That is a completley different thing then Religion by itself, which has its components of faith -- but many, many, many, MANY scientists have been able to easily reconcile faith and science.
But mix politics into religion, and religion becomes tainted -- you don't believe in "climate change" but not because of faith, or anything religious. Anything scientific is anti-faith, period. And /power/ drives the whole movement at that point-- because there is no point to politics but power-- so with religion driving, and politics directing, ignorance becomes a virtue.
Its not anti-religion to be worried about that. All religion isn't bad. The merger of religion with politics in our system, where any evidence-based scientific development is simply flatly assumed to be a lie -- THAT is a problem.
Religion doesn't have to be anti-science, or vice-versa.
Its hidden in that normal users don't go into /System. They find apps in /Applications, certain system utilities and diag tools for advanced users in /Applications/Utilities, but /System is not a user-oriened place to go.
Its "hidden" like if Microsoft put a useful app in C:\Windows or even C:\Windows\system23 which was not accessible in he Start Menu, Control Panel, Administrative Tools, or normal places people expect to go to find things. /System is not aggressively hidden, but it is not in an reality "in plain sight".
Er, one correction: it only matters if they had a search warrent and /forced the search/.
Police, investigators, anyone, are entirely within their rights to ask to search anything even if they have no right to demand a search.
Public or private. Someone can walk up to your door and say, "I think my kid is in your house, can I look around?"
They are under no obligation to prove any level of valid basis for that assertion -- if they ask you for permission and you say yes, they can search your house. Because you are letting them.
Police can say, "Mind if I come in, ma'am?" And you let them in, and they look around in plain sight and find something and you get arrested. That isn't a violation of the 4th amendment, even if they had no solid reason to ask -- the very fact that they ASKED and you GAVE PERMISSION changes the whole question.
You're right: it doesn't matter if they were SFPD, or SSFPD, or anyone else-- if they had a warrent they were legally in the right. BUT. The thing is, everything I've read about this has said this guy /gave permission/ to search. So at that point, it could have been ANYONE, in ANY jurisdiction. Now, some have said that there were threats and that the people asking for permission were threatening to involve INS -- and if thats true, a Judge may find that the permisssion was under duress. But, otherwise,
A search warrent is important, yes. For the governemnt to mandate a search requires one, and what "government" means there can vary depending on jurisdiction... If one exists, all this whining doesn't matter. BUT. That is not at all the story I've heard about this situation: there needs be no search warrent if one willingly grants access to their premesis.
If any random dude asks "Can I search your house for the color pink?" and you let them, they are in no way shape or form susceptible to any constitutional challenges on the "search". Random dude can be a cop, or a homeless guy wandering past-- if you consent to them wandering around your house, so be it.
The question is: did the party misrepresent the situation, and essentially deceive the homeowner about who it is is asking to search, and who is actually searching? Its a crime to pretend to be a police officer; but if a police officer asks if their technicians can look around and you are in no way obligated to obey, there is no force-- and though you may be confused on who 'technician' is and who they work for-- it is NOT the same thing as Apple forcing their way in and demanding to search the house.
In the end, the dude seems like he gave permission for a search. Maybe he was not entirely aware enough as he should have been. But his choices are his choices.
seriously?
BioShock, dude.
(Granted, Andrew Ryan has some serious Ayn Rand influence, but still)
Some people have suggested Google of doing bad things with its search/ad business, but I don't know specifics to really comment.
Microsoft? I don't think they are anymore.
It depends on exactly what they're doing and what you mean by "leveraging": its not illegal for a monopoly to grow their business into new areas, every business wants to do that.
Its illegal for them to use their monopoly in such a way that they get an unfair edge in this new market, _because_ of that monopoly. I am not really aware of any leveraging Microsoft is really doing anymore with regards to Windows and Office: they're leveraging a cash pile and filling up standards bodies to manipulate the hell out of them, and while that may be unethical, I don't really think its antitrust-liable. IANAL. But Windows? Besides that Office for the Mac is inferior and so the only 'real' version of office runs on Windows, that's not really leveraging in the way that matters I think -- a company has no obligation to write software for alternate platforms.
The classic example of "leveraging a monopoly to build another" is the OEM Windows licensing deals Microsoft made. Nearly everyone wanted Windows, but to be price-competitive, OEM's needed to get a special price from Microsoft to do it. If they didn't, they would simply not be able to do business, period. So Microsoft wrote into the contracts rules that forbade the OEM's from installing Netscape on the computers, even though customers arguably wanted it, and then other rules that forbade OEM's from offering 'bare' machines or say, machines with Linux on them. So no matter what, every single machine paid Microsoft a few bucks, even if Windows was never on it at all. And when Microsoft wanted to beat Netscape, suddenly OEM's that previously were bundling Netscape no longer were allowed to, no matter what customers preferred.
Is MS doing anything like that these days? I'm not really aware of it, but I may not have been paying attention. The OOXML joke of a process and other lobbying-related marketing effects are the most recent nasty I remember them doing, but none of that is illegal according to Antitrust and competition laws, IIUC.
Google... has perhaps what amounts to a monopoly in ads, perhaps; I'm not sure if people can do business and ignore adsense and survive. And some have accused that their search rankings unfairly bias towards their own services, which could I suppose be claimed is using one monopoly to leverage into another. But, I dunno for sure.
Its easier to point out when stuff firmly is /not/, then it is to be sure if it /is/. :)
My memory is fine.
First: being a monopoly is not illegal. Its the goal of every business to get there. Once you get there (and in certain /very limited/ circumstances, how you get there) then maybe you have to take care with what you do, or you may run afoul of Antitrust laws.
However. That said: even assuming your first assertion is correct, that Apple had a monopoly of iPod (and I don't actually, at all, think you're right on that at all -- a monopoly means there is no real choice, not that everyone has chosen your product. There is a very big difference, and if you can't see the difference then this discussion is pointless. Successfully beating your competitors does not a monopoly make, and there was never any shortage of MP3 players)... even if your assertion was true, what followed with the iTMS is NOT an example of a monopoly being leveraged to take another market unfairly.
Its simply *not*. It would not in any way run afoul of antitrust laws.
Apple was under absolutely no obligation to license FairPlay. That they did not do so meant that content purchased via iTMS was indeed locked into their own devices-- but there is nothing actually illegal about vendor lock-in and proprietary formats. The iPod was perfectly capable of playing MP3s you bought from other services. You were able to quite readily and easily use content obtained from any other service (unless said other service encrypted it: but that's them being monopolists according to you) on the iPod.
There's many excellent reasons to avoid vendor lock-in and proprietary formats, especially in situations like Government, but there's nothing wrong with a company doing it, from a legal or antitrust standpoint. My Kindle books can only be read on my Amazon-provided apps, for instance. And Amazon is biggest book seller in the world (I don't actually know that as a fact, it may be hyperbole on my part), but that does not mean there is any monopoly-ness anywhere around what they're doing either.
The iPad isn't a monopoly, either, though its damn close: but its too new of a market for you to use words like 'monopoly', and there's active competition going on still, and people have choice. The non-iPad choices just suck at the moment, so no one is choosing to buy them.
You seem to confuse "success" with "monopoly": they simply are not the same thing. Even being a monopoly is not illegal, and is not actionable. Its only *certain, specific proscribed* types of behavior that is deemed "anti-competitive" and "restraint of trade", that *remove* consumer choice or manipulate prices through collusion and the like, that's illegal.
The App Store is an argument you can make, but you'd have to somehow define the market very narrowly -- and you'd fail, I bet. Psystar tried to define "Mac" as a market unto itself and thus declare Apple a monopoly, and that didn't fly. As long as developers can write for multiple platforms, and as long as customers can choose multiple platforms, and ESPECIALLY as long as the iPhone isn't even a majority platform, you'll never succeed in arguing Apple's control of the app store is a "monopoly", and even if it IS, that is NOT ILLEGAL.
Apple has a tightly integrated series of products, and it is designed in such a way that once you buy one of their products, the value proposition of the others increases. As you buy a second, your first becomes more useful and valuable to you. As you add more (be it an Apple product, iTunes content, Apps or what not), the value continues to increase: and as one wears down, the value of a competitors product is lower then replacing it with an Apple, because your new device won't fit into the synergistic ecosystem you've got going.
That's not monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior: that's good business. At no stage there did you, the consumer, get forced to choose the Apple device: at no stage there were you unable to use a competitors device. You can buy an Android phone and use it instead of the iPhone, you can use a Zune and even be proud
Um. Because monopoly doesn't even kind of mean what you seem to think it means.
Apple isn't even close to a monopoly in either of its two biggest market-share products, iPod (75% I think?) and ITMS (largest single music seller, though I don't know what % that is). There are countless viable substitutions people can buy if they want to. There is no coercive force in play making it so you need to or must buy their products (compare and contrast this to Microsoft during its monopolist days, where it was incredibly difficult to buy a new computer without paying Microsoft a fee, and with any competitors software pre-installed).
Yes, its a vertically-integrated product line, but that is NOT the same thing as having a monopoly. "iPhone" is not the whole of a market, it is but one of a number of viable competitors. The App Store may be the only way to get native apps onto the device, but that doesn't mean Apple has an "iPhone monopoly" they are abusing to extend one market into another. The iPhone is not a market: there is plenty of choice out there for those who want to buy something else.
Monopolies are not illegal: only monopolies obtained or maintained through certain prohibited practices (which for single firms and not cartels are rather few and hard to prove: but you can't argue Apple with its industry-envied margins is engaging in predatory pricing, which is one of the things single firms can get bitten for doing under antitrust law), and using the power of a monopoly in one market to extend into another.
In no way does Apple fit into any of these categories (the only place you could even argue it is the App Store and its relationship to the iphone, except as Android supporters will tell you, iPhone is anything but a monopoly. You have to have a monopoly before you can use a monopoly to bad ends: and "monopoly" does not translate into, "the only person to make this particular thing that others are aggressively competiting with", even if "this particular thing" is the what you're making your addons for).