Well knowing Google and Microsoft are fierce competitors, and flagging a legit application as a virus to be a very rare occurrence, I can see why people might think Microsoft was maybe less diligent with their Chrome testing. How long it took to fix it is irrelevant as Microsoft probably had the fix ready. They were just waiting for people/Google to complain about this problem.
The only people who will get anything out of this are lawyers. Even if Apple is 100% guilty and infringing, a judge would never issue an injunction if it means the death of Apple. All that can happen is they will have to settle resulting in a "reasonable" amount of money exchanged between the two.
Funny you should ask that. Maybe Microsoft is considered a monopoly?
I'll illustrate with an example: if you buy an Oracle RDBMS because you need more efficiency than SQL Server and want to use SharePoint for collaboration because it is the most efficient software you found, well you can't. SharePoint only accepts MS SQL Server as its back-end. If SharePoint was made by Apple, and since Apple doesn't market any particular RDBMS, they would likely support at least Oracle and MS SQL Server RDBMS.
Instead, you have three choices, don't buy SharePoint at all, spend more money to support and maintain two or more RDBMS, trash Oracle and switch to SQL Server because inefficiencies are someone else problem.
Multiply this times all their products and you'll get what Microlith is referring to.
Microsoft can monetize FOSS just like everyone else does. Free doesn't mean deprived of profits.
Architecture is an art. Some like, some don't. It is an interesting viewpoint but trying to link the shape of a building to Apple employees social responsibilities is a bit of a stretch. Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.
I always hear "may not work on humans." Sounds to me like scientists pretty much cured rodents of all possible disease. Even cancer, now baldness, is no longer a problem for mice.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have an iPhone because it works great and was at the time much better than the Android phone I tried (a Sony Xperia - the soft keyboard was unusable). I chose the iPhone because it was the better choice for me. I now realize there's a lot of Apple haters who insist we're sheep, zombies, and cult members. No doubt there are some hard core fans but the same can be said of any other product of company. If you're happy with your Android then great. Personally, when I feel like it's time to change, I'll go around once again and see if I should go with WP7, Android or whatever else works best for me. Great if T-mobile sells that unit (although I'm not in the USA, little chance I'll help them out).
Imagine two people sitting at an airport terminal. One person, with business attire, opens up his laptop. It's a Lenovo. Another person, dressed casually but with taste, opens a Apple MacBook Pro. Which of the two would you expect to be more affluent? The answer to that question decides if you buy Apple for looks or for usability/service, etc.
It is basically the Apple Newton on a tablet format. Since it was never marketed or sold, I don't see how Samsung could use it against Apple. It was simply a prototype.
This might be true but Apple pioneered today's tablets. Even Ballmer was surprised on how well the iPad sold. In fact, no one believed a larger iPhone (which the iPad isn't really) would actually be worthwhile. Even Android took many months to develop a version of their OS which took advantage of the larger screen resolution. I understand Apple wanting to defend their product, what other choice do they have? It's up to Samsung to convince the judge now. I hope he'll rely on looking at the actual devices and not their image to make a ruling.
I mean from the inception of the company to today, Apple has been relatively volatile compared to Exxon or even Microsoft. Unlike Exxon and Microsoft, Apple doesn't really have a long term cash cow. Exxon has oil, Microsoft has MS Office. Apple has recently been very successful with the iPod and iPad but competition is lurking. There is no guarantee they will remain leaders 4 years from now. It's likely but this uncertainty is what makes it more volatile.
Although Apple is on top at the moment, they have a very volatile stock. This tend to discourage long-term investments generally accounts for less than 15% of a well balanced portfolio. Microsoft and also Exxon on the other hand have a stable stock price and they both tend to play it generally safe. It might not please stock holders who were looking to make money quickly but perhaps is how a company can achieve more maturity.
So yeah, they are big now but they might be tiny in a few months.
Telex anyone? Also used messaging in high-school in the late 70's. We used a mechanical teletype to dial-up other schools, then tried to flirt with girls taking computer programming classes. That's when rule 16 was first being considered.
How is it dead? Apple only patented ONE WAY of doing this. Wouldn't coming up with another, maybe better, way (to avoid infringement) result in innovation?
I bought an iPhone from one of the Steves because it was the better product for me. When my contract ends, it might be something else but I feel Apple will want to keep my business.
Apple complies with Taiwan's policy whilst Google shows them who's the boss and in retaliation, pulls paid apps from Taiwanese on-line store. Apple's anti-business behaviour is appalling, forcing Taiwanese into just one store from where to buy software. Through this move, Apple no doubt encourages copyright infringements and war between China and Taiwan.
During a speech at work about 10 years ago, my boss started talking about innovation and how one day, out of their garage, two young engineers invented the IBM personal computer. I then corrected him but he just brushed us off. I lost all respect for this fella and transferred to another department. I still love to point out his mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Well knowing Google and Microsoft are fierce competitors, and flagging a legit application as a virus to be a very rare occurrence, I can see why people might think Microsoft was maybe less diligent with their Chrome testing. How long it took to fix it is irrelevant as Microsoft probably had the fix ready. They were just waiting for people/Google to complain about this problem.
Let me know who funds you research. Seeing they don't care if they actually make money from patents, I might have a proposal for them.
The only people who will get anything out of this are lawyers. Even if Apple is 100% guilty and infringing, a judge would never issue an injunction if it means the death of Apple. All that can happen is they will have to settle resulting in a "reasonable" amount of money exchanged between the two.
Don't make things more dramatic than they are.
Why SHOULD they promote non-Microsoft platforms?
Funny you should ask that. Maybe Microsoft is considered a monopoly?
I'll illustrate with an example: if you buy an Oracle RDBMS because you need more efficiency than SQL Server and want to use SharePoint for collaboration because it is the most efficient software you found, well you can't. SharePoint only accepts MS SQL Server as its back-end. If SharePoint was made by Apple, and since Apple doesn't market any particular RDBMS, they would likely support at least Oracle and MS SQL Server RDBMS.
Instead, you have three choices, don't buy SharePoint at all, spend more money to support and maintain two or more RDBMS, trash Oracle and switch to SQL Server because inefficiencies are someone else problem.
Multiply this times all their products and you'll get what Microlith is referring to.
Microsoft can monetize FOSS just like everyone else does. Free doesn't mean deprived of profits.
Maybe Microsoft aims to fight off malware by lowering their market share.
Architecture is an art. Some like, some don't. It is an interesting viewpoint but trying to link the shape of a building to Apple employees social responsibilities is a bit of a stretch. Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.
I always hear "may not work on humans." Sounds to me like scientists pretty much cured rodents of all possible disease. Even cancer, now baldness, is no longer a problem for mice.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have an iPhone because it works great and was at the time much better than the Android phone I tried (a Sony Xperia - the soft keyboard was unusable). I chose the iPhone because it was the better choice for me. I now realize there's a lot of Apple haters who insist we're sheep, zombies, and cult members. No doubt there are some hard core fans but the same can be said of any other product of company. If you're happy with your Android then great. Personally, when I feel like it's time to change, I'll go around once again and see if I should go with WP7, Android or whatever else works best for me. Great if T-mobile sells that unit (although I'm not in the USA, little chance I'll help them out).
As a normal citizen, not particularly militant, I believe there will always be influence.
Let me reword a famous adage: Corporations and lobbies see anti-lobby regulations as damage and reroute around them.
Imagine two people sitting at an airport terminal. One person, with business attire, opens up his laptop. It's a Lenovo. Another person, dressed casually but with taste, opens a Apple MacBook Pro. Which of the two would you expect to be more affluent? The answer to that question decides if you buy Apple for looks or for usability/service, etc.
Well the Mac in this case is the threat and not the vulnerability. So from that perspective, the Mac itself remains secure.
It is basically the Apple Newton on a tablet format. Since it was never marketed or sold, I don't see how Samsung could use it against Apple. It was simply a prototype.
This might be true but Apple pioneered today's tablets. Even Ballmer was surprised on how well the iPad sold. In fact, no one believed a larger iPhone (which the iPad isn't really) would actually be worthwhile. Even Android took many months to develop a version of their OS which took advantage of the larger screen resolution. I understand Apple wanting to defend their product, what other choice do they have? It's up to Samsung to convince the judge now. I hope he'll rely on looking at the actual devices and not their image to make a ruling.
The iPad 2 starts at 519$CAN ($524US) from the apple.ca store. Note that you'll need to add 13% sales tax.
I mean from the inception of the company to today, Apple has been relatively volatile compared to Exxon or even Microsoft. Unlike Exxon and Microsoft, Apple doesn't really have a long term cash cow. Exxon has oil, Microsoft has MS Office. Apple has recently been very successful with the iPod and iPad but competition is lurking. There is no guarantee they will remain leaders 4 years from now. It's likely but this uncertainty is what makes it more volatile.
Although Apple is on top at the moment, they have a very volatile stock. This tend to discourage long-term investments generally accounts for less than 15% of a well balanced portfolio. Microsoft and also Exxon on the other hand have a stable stock price and they both tend to play it generally safe. It might not please stock holders who were looking to make money quickly but perhaps is how a company can achieve more maturity.
So yeah, they are big now but they might be tiny in a few months.
Might be jailbroken but at least the PDF problem is fixed.
Telex anyone?
Also used messaging in high-school in the late 70's. We used a mechanical teletype to dial-up other schools, then tried to flirt with girls taking computer programming classes. That's when rule 16 was first being considered.
How is it dead? Apple only patented ONE WAY of doing this. Wouldn't coming up with another, maybe better, way (to avoid infringement) result in innovation?
I bought an iPhone from one of the Steves because it was the better product for me. When my contract ends, it might be something else but I feel Apple will want to keep my business.
Are you implying those who root their Android do it to pirate software?
So sorry. Let's fix this:
Apple complies with Taiwan's policy whilst Google shows them who's the boss and in retaliation, pulls paid apps from Taiwanese on-line store. Apple's anti-business behaviour is appalling, forcing Taiwanese into just one store from where to buy software. Through this move, Apple no doubt encourages copyright infringements and war between China and Taiwan.
During a speech at work about 10 years ago, my boss started talking about innovation and how one day, out of their garage, two young engineers invented the IBM personal computer. I then corrected him but he just brushed us off. I lost all respect for this fella and transferred to another department. I still love to point out his mistake.
Our cattle reach enlightenment, then commit mass suicide. Yes, it's more work but our faculty feels it makes for better tasting meat.
Unfortunately, gravity made most of it fall back on it's face.