Microsoft negotiates license fees. Apple looks for injunctions banning sales. There's a world of difference between the two. Manufacturers probably *would* just cough up cash and license these patents from Apple just to save the court costs if Apple would allow them to pursue that option.
The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.
Agreed, except that the level of abuse of the patent system that Apple is currently engaged in is unprecedented in recent history. If we'd had this same issue back in the mid-late 90s with 3d hardware, the first company to successfully render a triangle would have tried to sue everyone else into oblivion because they "innovated" the concept of 3d hardware acceleration. Instead, we saw a few patent spats but for the most part very healthy competition and almost *no* injunctions against hardware being sold.
Apple's problem is that they *don't* innovate. They polish up existing ideas quite nicely, and then put a premium price tag on them. Anybody can come in and put their own twist on those same ideas and compete on price.
I give Apple another 5 years in the limelight. Tops. Their marketshare is already being eaten away by Android and I believe they'll be relegated back to the 5-10% level like they were in the desktop era. There's just no way they can keep up with every other device manufacturer on the planet.
He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.
Maybe if someone else could put up a candidate that wasn't a joke, you wouldn't have to worry about us poor misguided souls voting for someone that you (probably irrationally) despise.
Also, lose the "hope and change" criticism. People voted for him for his substantial policies as well, not just the fluff slogan (which, btw, is something every fucking candidate has). Bring some real complaints to the table or we'll just have to assume that you're ignorant of anything that actually matters.
You, sir, are a perfect case of penny-wise pound-foolish.
Your condescention is amusing. Consider the fact that the US spends nearly twice as high a percentage of its GDP on health care as every other industrialized nation and is the only one without a single-payer system, and does not have anywhere near the best overall healthcare output. Then come back to me with a straight face and brag about getting the best care money can buy. Shit, we're about the only country that even has a concept of "medical bankruptcy" -- and half of all medical bankruptcies are declared by people who had health insurance!
These aren't difficult facts to find, unless of course, your mind is already made up for ideological reasons and you just refuse to accept the facts.
The reason I don't have a whole lot of respect for 'free market' types: ask 5 of them to describe what's important in a free market, and you'll get 5 wildly differing answers.
My company's CFO is a free market type. I asked him if perfect knowledge was important in an efficient market: he said yes. I asked him if he'd be willing to lay bare all of our company's costs and profits to our customers: he said no. So he's perfectly ok with having information asymmetry as long as it benefits him, and perfectly ok with distorting the efficiency of the market in doing so. So, like most free market types, he wants those principles to apply to *other* people, just not himself.
He has applied a bandaid to all of the points that you mentioned... which will almost surely cause greater collapse than had he just let it be.
It's great that you are able to look into the future and let us know the outcome of these things, as well as all other possible outcomes of past events. The rest of us are forced to evaluate what's going on merely by judging the present state of things... the present in which the car manufacturing sector in the US hasn't collapsed.
I'm not sure what the 'evil' was in 2000; in fact, the media sold us on the idea that both candidates might as well be the same person.
In 2004, the greater evil was apparently gays maybe getting married. I have to wonder how many bigots realize that they're on the embarrassing side of history on that one.
Buy your ramen from Amazon. 41 cents/pack, free shipping.
Holy shit. I've never resorted to a Ramen diet, but back when I was working at WinCo (regional supermarket) in the late 90s, there were regularly deals for Maruchan Ramen for less than $0.10/pack. (In fact, I think during back-to-school rushes it would generally be $0.03/pack) I find it difficult to believe that $0.41/pack is now considered a "good" price.
And that problem exists for all the other cheap places as well. Certainly your solution is more realistic than the reductio ad absurdum that the GP AC suggests, but it still fails to take into account the tragedy of the commons.
What, so you think that everyone should be in competition with teenagers for jobs? That's great -- we can just have everybody living with their parents (who, presumably, have the 'real' jobs) until they find their own 'real' job that makes them a full citizen.
And why do you think teenagers don't deserve a living wage? They already don't generally get very many hours and don't get any other benefits, why should they also be denied a decent hourly rate?
Oh, wait, I'll strawman you here. It's because you think you're better than them, and that you deserve more and they deserve less. I cannot come up with any other explanation that doesn't derive from your own sense of self-importance and entitlement at the expense of others, and I think your posting history easily confirms this.
it is hard to convince someone to act against their own pocketbook.
Nah, not really. Just convince someone that they're "rich" and then tell them that they're coming after the rich with tax increases.
I had someone argue with me about tax increases on the rich because they were genuinely concerned that they were going to see their own taxes rise. This person and her husband made roughly $120k/year combined. It was pretty clear that she just wanted to believe that she was rich.
Don't give them that much credit; these aren't shills. Apple doesn't need to pay people for this pathetic white-knighting. These are honest-to-goodness deluded fanbois who can't stand that a critical thing is ever said about their sacred cow.
You just pulled that entire comment out of your ass, didn't you? And also without a hint of irony, in that what you've described is exactly what most employers would love to be able to do to their workers?
Just look at how unions operate in Germany for example. They work in excellent synergy with the private sector. The rhetoric of companies being the enemy does not do any services in these modern times.
Your bias is showing. You seem to think that the only rhetoric is that companies are the enemy of the people and that there's no corresponding rhetoric about the evils of unions.
I consider it an honor to try to spread the message of liberty.
previously...
There is no way that hot chick would sleep with a bunch of slobs like us so we gang raped her.
I'm lazy and have no self control and I can't save any money. So me and some guys got together and robbed some rich guy. He didn't need the money anyway.
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers.
So you spread that message by setting up strawmen to attack?
You've already got (at least) 20 posts in this thread, absolutely none of them about Jelly Bean. (except a couple where you assert that some less-than-acceptable-percentage-to-you will get the update).
Is Google attempting to prevent you from doing what you want on your hardware? No. Is Google attempting to lock competing device manfacturers out of the market using bullshit design patent claims? No. Is Google giving some devices 'updates' to the newest version of Android but withholding the main features from all but the newest devices (a la Siri, non-Wifi FaceTime, etc)? No. Is Apple doing all of these things? Yes.
The existence of competition doesn't diminish your ability to do what you bought your devices for in any way. If you need validation of your own choice by trying to get everyone else to also make that same choice, I have bad news for you: you're going to be disappointed. Go play in your walled iGarden that you like so much and don't buy Android devices if you don't like their feature set and PLEASE shut the hell up.
But since we all know you won't do that: fuck off, you offtopic troll.
Why does this have to be about iOS or Windows Phone?
You touchy fandroids really can't seem to get past defining yourselves by how much you hate everyone else.
You're threadjacking a discussion about an update to the Android OS, talking about how it's inferior to iOS and how Android devices are inferior to iOS devices, and you accuse everyone *us* of being 'fandroids'? Nice RDF you have there.
The great thing about Android is choice. If OS updates are important to you, you buy a device that will get OS updates from the manufacturer, or one that is well supported by the community. If it's just an appliance that you use to make phone calls and maybe browse the web sometimes, you probably don't give a shit about updates.
There is zero such alternative on any iOS device. The closest you get is the option to buy old, outdated hardware at a cheaper price (but it still has the trendy Apple logo on the back!) I know in your mind that less choice = good, but out here in reality, we all know that less choice is only good for the manufacturer, because of the psychological effect of making it easier to get people to buy your stuff.
This is where apple shines. If an OS is available, it'll be available for every phone that supports it.
This feat sounds far less impressive when you realize that this includes 3, maybe 4 phones, and a handful of other devices... that were all designed and manufactured by Apple (in California (tm)). I'd be surprised if they *couldn't* keep them all up-to-date. But especially amusing is the fact that some iOS updates make older devices perform like shit -- when you have complete control of the extremely limited variety for a platform, there's really no excuse for that whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft negotiates license fees. Apple looks for injunctions banning sales. There's a world of difference between the two. Manufacturers probably *would* just cough up cash and license these patents from Apple just to save the court costs if Apple would allow them to pursue that option.
--Jeremy
Sorry, "but he did it too!" wasn't a valid argument when you were 3, and it's not valid now.
--Jeremy
The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.
Agreed, except that the level of abuse of the patent system that Apple is currently engaged in is unprecedented in recent history. If we'd had this same issue back in the mid-late 90s with 3d hardware, the first company to successfully render a triangle would have tried to sue everyone else into oblivion because they "innovated" the concept of 3d hardware acceleration. Instead, we saw a few patent spats but for the most part very healthy competition and almost *no* injunctions against hardware being sold.
Apple's problem is that they *don't* innovate. They polish up existing ideas quite nicely, and then put a premium price tag on them. Anybody can come in and put their own twist on those same ideas and compete on price.
I give Apple another 5 years in the limelight. Tops. Their marketshare is already being eaten away by Android and I believe they'll be relegated back to the 5-10% level like they were in the desktop era. There's just no way they can keep up with every other device manufacturer on the planet.
--Jeremy
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts
You can't get a whole lot less rational than declaring a vendetta against a non-sentient entity.
--Jeremy
He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.
Maybe if someone else could put up a candidate that wasn't a joke, you wouldn't have to worry about us poor misguided souls voting for someone that you (probably irrationally) despise.
Also, lose the "hope and change" criticism. People voted for him for his substantial policies as well, not just the fluff slogan (which, btw, is something every fucking candidate has). Bring some real complaints to the table or we'll just have to assume that you're ignorant of anything that actually matters.
--Jeremy
You, sir, are a perfect case of penny-wise pound-foolish.
Your condescention is amusing. Consider the fact that the US spends nearly twice as high a percentage of its GDP on health care as every other industrialized nation and is the only one without a single-payer system, and does not have anywhere near the best overall healthcare output. Then come back to me with a straight face and brag about getting the best care money can buy. Shit, we're about the only country that even has a concept of "medical bankruptcy" -- and half of all medical bankruptcies are declared by people who had health insurance!
These aren't difficult facts to find, unless of course, your mind is already made up for ideological reasons and you just refuse to accept the facts.
--Jeremy
Why do people always think "more laws and more regulations will make everything better", when it never does?
Why do you always resort to strawmen?
--Jeremy
The reason I don't have a whole lot of respect for 'free market' types: ask 5 of them to describe what's important in a free market, and you'll get 5 wildly differing answers.
My company's CFO is a free market type. I asked him if perfect knowledge was important in an efficient market: he said yes. I asked him if he'd be willing to lay bare all of our company's costs and profits to our customers: he said no. So he's perfectly ok with having information asymmetry as long as it benefits him, and perfectly ok with distorting the efficiency of the market in doing so. So, like most free market types, he wants those principles to apply to *other* people, just not himself.
--Jeremy
He has applied a bandaid to all of the points that you mentioned... which will almost surely cause greater collapse than had he just let it be.
It's great that you are able to look into the future and let us know the outcome of these things, as well as all other possible outcomes of past events. The rest of us are forced to evaluate what's going on merely by judging the present state of things ... the present in which the car manufacturing sector in the US hasn't collapsed.
--Jeremy
The spin is strong with this one.
--Jeremy
I'm not sure what the 'evil' was in 2000; in fact, the media sold us on the idea that both candidates might as well be the same person.
In 2004, the greater evil was apparently gays maybe getting married. I have to wonder how many bigots realize that they're on the embarrassing side of history on that one.
--Jeremy
You can bet that the Apple review process will be looking hard at similar apps from Russia from now on.
*phew* We can all rest easy now. No more shoebombers will get on these planes. Oh, wait, we're talking about app stores?
--Jeremy
Buy your ramen from Amazon. 41 cents/pack, free shipping.
Holy shit. I've never resorted to a Ramen diet, but back when I was working at WinCo (regional supermarket) in the late 90s, there were regularly deals for Maruchan Ramen for less than $0.10/pack. (In fact, I think during back-to-school rushes it would generally be $0.03/pack) I find it difficult to believe that $0.41/pack is now considered a "good" price.
--Jeremy
And that problem exists for all the other cheap places as well. Certainly your solution is more realistic than the reductio ad absurdum that the GP AC suggests, but it still fails to take into account the tragedy of the commons.
--Jeremy
That doesn't even make sense. If they were using Apple as R&D, it should *increase* their profit margins.
--Jeremy
What, so you think that everyone should be in competition with teenagers for jobs? That's great -- we can just have everybody living with their parents (who, presumably, have the 'real' jobs) until they find their own 'real' job that makes them a full citizen.
And why do you think teenagers don't deserve a living wage? They already don't generally get very many hours and don't get any other benefits, why should they also be denied a decent hourly rate?
Oh, wait, I'll strawman you here. It's because you think you're better than them, and that you deserve more and they deserve less. I cannot come up with any other explanation that doesn't derive from your own sense of self-importance and entitlement at the expense of others, and I think your posting history easily confirms this.
--Jeremy
it is hard to convince someone to act against their own pocketbook.
Nah, not really. Just convince someone that they're "rich" and then tell them that they're coming after the rich with tax increases.
I had someone argue with me about tax increases on the rich because they were genuinely concerned that they were going to see their own taxes rise. This person and her husband made roughly $120k/year combined. It was pretty clear that she just wanted to believe that she was rich.
--Jeremy
Don't give them that much credit; these aren't shills. Apple doesn't need to pay people for this pathetic white-knighting. These are honest-to-goodness deluded fanbois who can't stand that a critical thing is ever said about their sacred cow.
--Jeremy
You just pulled that entire comment out of your ass, didn't you? And also without a hint of irony, in that what you've described is exactly what most employers would love to be able to do to their workers?
--Jeremy
Just look at how unions operate in Germany for example. They work in excellent synergy with the private sector. The rhetoric of companies being the enemy does not do any services in these modern times.
Your bias is showing. You seem to think that the only rhetoric is that companies are the enemy of the people and that there's no corresponding rhetoric about the evils of unions.
--Jeremy
I consider it an honor to try to spread the message of liberty.
previously...
There is no way that hot chick would sleep with a bunch of slobs like us so we gang raped her.
I'm lazy and have no self control and I can't save any money. So me and some guys got together and robbed some rich guy. He didn't need the money anyway.
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers.
So you spread that message by setting up strawmen to attack?
--Jeremy
You've already got (at least) 20 posts in this thread, absolutely none of them about Jelly Bean. (except a couple where you assert that some less-than-acceptable-percentage-to-you will get the update).
Is Google attempting to prevent you from doing what you want on your hardware? No. Is Google attempting to lock competing device manfacturers out of the market using bullshit design patent claims? No. Is Google giving some devices 'updates' to the newest version of Android but withholding the main features from all but the newest devices (a la Siri, non-Wifi FaceTime, etc)? No. Is Apple doing all of these things? Yes.
The existence of competition doesn't diminish your ability to do what you bought your devices for in any way. If you need validation of your own choice by trying to get everyone else to also make that same choice, I have bad news for you: you're going to be disappointed. Go play in your walled iGarden that you like so much and don't buy Android devices if you don't like their feature set and PLEASE shut the hell up.
But since we all know you won't do that: fuck off, you offtopic troll.
--Jeremy
Why does this have to be about iOS or Windows Phone?
You touchy fandroids really can't seem to get past defining yourselves by how much you hate everyone else.
You're threadjacking a discussion about an update to the Android OS, talking about how it's inferior to iOS and how Android devices are inferior to iOS devices, and you accuse everyone *us* of being 'fandroids'? Nice RDF you have there.
--Jeremy
The great thing about Android is choice. If OS updates are important to you, you buy a device that will get OS updates from the manufacturer, or one that is well supported by the community. If it's just an appliance that you use to make phone calls and maybe browse the web sometimes, you probably don't give a shit about updates.
There is zero such alternative on any iOS device. The closest you get is the option to buy old, outdated hardware at a cheaper price (but it still has the trendy Apple logo on the back!) I know in your mind that less choice = good, but out here in reality, we all know that less choice is only good for the manufacturer, because of the psychological effect of making it easier to get people to buy your stuff.
--Jeremy
This is where apple shines. If an OS is available, it'll be available for every phone that supports it.
This feat sounds far less impressive when you realize that this includes 3, maybe 4 phones, and a handful of other devices... that were all designed and manufactured by Apple (in California (tm)). I'd be surprised if they *couldn't* keep them all up-to-date. But especially amusing is the fact that some iOS updates make older devices perform like shit -- when you have complete control of the extremely limited variety for a platform, there's really no excuse for that whatsoever.
--Jeremy