Yep, it's so funny they are laughing all the way to the bank.
I wonder what I would do if I made the most popular tablet on the market by a HUGE margin and then decided to come out with a smaller version. Hmm, would I worry about what a few cheapskate android using slashdotters thought, or would I would maintain my previously successful pricing strategy...what to do, what to do.
The entire point of the patent system is to grant an exclusive monopoly on an invention for a limited time to the inventor in exchange for divulging how it was done. Too bad if others can't compete due to this. If they can't compete because of this, that is further proof of the novelty of the invention and thus the inventing entity deserves the spoils all the more.
I think the patent has run out on the coffee tureen by now. However, I can see your point about similar products having a similar design, but Samsung took this to the extreme. Apple hasn't sued Motorola over the the Xoom's appearance because while similar in form factor, it didn't take practically every major design cue from Apple like the Galaxy did.... hell, even the packaging and power brick look the same. If you think that there should be no such thing as design patents, fine, argue that, but it's plain that Samsung copied Apple in this case.
It requires that any hardware manufacturers jump through the "Made for iPod/iPhone/iPad" process and licensing before their product can be marketed at being compatible. Yes, there are some costs incurred for the manufacturer that are paid to Apple, along with licensing royalties, but it also ensures that the device being connected behaves the way Apple needs it to behave (i.e., not drawing too much current, etc). Because their cable is proprietary, they can enforce this whereas if it were a micro-usb, they couldn't. This does have a lock-in effect though that I think you are overlooking. Think of all the iPod docks out there, or iPhone car mounts... Lets say you have entire home theatre tricked out and part of that system includes a nice, beautiful dock that only works with Apple's devices... If your iPod dies, what kind of device will you buy to ensure continued compatibility. Yes, this new dock port will force some to reconsider an apple product since their old docks won't work any more, but for those that do choose to buy into the new port, Apple has just locked in a large percentage of those users who might otherwise buy a samsung galaxy if not for the investment they already made.
Hardly. Do you think Apple just magically shat out an OS and hardware a few weeks before the iPhone was released? All of that took quite a bit of time to write and develop before being released to the masses and since Apple didn't buy an already existing product to do it, I would say they started on it before Google purchased Android.
Yes, they should suck it up as your alternative traps everyone in a shitty system instead only the poor. Like it or not, life isn't fair and no amount of federal bureaucracy will fix that. Getting rid of the DOE and other federal departments that truly offer little or no value add for our way of life is a good first step.
Yes, being poor sucks... tell us something we don't know.
I guess that would depend on whether my private fork would somehow give me a competitive advantage or not. Would the iPad sell as well if anyone could have iOS running on any old tablet. I guess it just depends on what you are trying to do. Apple gives back to open source in many ways, but they certainly don't give back everything as that would negate their efforts in setting themselves apart.
I think you are mostly right. Amazon is really the only company currently capable of taking on Apple. If they were to do as you suggest and pretty much sell the Kindroids at cost, they could probably make a bit of coin on the content, but I think they would have to resort to a walled garden similar to Apple's for it to work. Yeah, you could probably the geek community side load apps and music (they would find a way around it anyway) but I wouldn't make it easy for the less savvy users. They will simply open up their app store app or music app and buy from amazon just like the Apple users do en mass. One thing they definitely would have to do though is make the process as seamless as possible because that is why the app store and iTMS took off.
Google owns dick. iPhone is the single most sold smartphone brand presently and Apple makes more than 50% of all smartphone profit and probably 80% to 90% of tablet profit. Google is giving Android away for free. Now if you were to say Samsung or HTC, then your comparison might be valid but Google only makes the OS, not the phones themselves. If you are going to throw in the whole of Android then it would more honest of you to at least count all iOS based devices too when talking about which mobile OS is reigning supreme at the moment.
What do you think these patent lawsuits are if not competing on innovation? I know it's not popular slashdot groupthink but patents are a way of staking claim to your innovations and preventing others from taking advantage of it in hopes that the resulting product will be better than the competition's. Apple is not your run of the mill patent troll. They actually make products incorporating these patentable inventions and I can't fault them for wanting to prevent other competing products from using those inventions.
Now I agree that software patents are a "bad idea," but not every patent lawsuit is about software patents. We all remember that Nokia managed to get a licensing out of Apple, so why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same for things they invented?
Therein lies the rub. Self-enrichment is a powerful motivator which often times spurs creativity which can not only reduce costs, but can also produce a superior product. It's a rare thing when the government actually does something well or efficiently, so I say lets give private enterprise a try and see what happens. Granted, it's not a sure thing... especially when the government starts messing with requirements and regulations and various inefficient procurement rules (ie, parts must be made in Alabama, assembled in North Dakota, and 47% of the parts must be from minority women owned businesses), but if they can mostly keep their hands off, it might just work.
Yeah, Stolen. As soon as you try to install it on a non-mac machine, you have broken the license and that license then becomes null and void and you are now installing stolen software onto your Atom rig. BTW, they do label its requirements, right on the side of the box.
Requirements: Mac computer with an Intel processor - 1GB of RAM - DVD drive for installation - 5GB of available disk space....
Your Porche analogy doesn't hold water. Porche doesn't require that you agree to a license to purchase their engine, Apple does. If you do not abide by that license, Apple can and should take all steps to prevent you from using their software in a manner contrary to their license. You may not like the concept of licensing software, but that is the reality in todays intellectual property world. Also, Apple has done nothing the version of OS X currently installed on your Atom rig. Preventing you from upgrading to their next version is not the same thing as "somehow change the engine AFTER purchase." And keep in mind, you didn't purchase the software, you purchased a license for the use of their software.... and if you attempt to break the license, you use of that license is no longer valid.
As the world continues to make scientific progress (albiet more slowly than theoretically possible, but that is acceptable), it will slowly become increasingly difficult for the unintelligent and uneducated to survive.
All things and people being equal, your point might actually be true. However, with the way that western societies have been doing anything and everything to ensure the survival of the weakest, laziest, most unfit of it's citizens at the expense of the rest of the population, I doubt your premise will come true while those states continue on their march towards socialist, nanny state policies. While social welfare programs tend to give folks a big warm and fuzzy, in the long run, it squeezes any incentive for trying to get ahead in life out of all but the most motivated of individuals. While it is definitely admirable that some individuals will continue to excel regardless of the social structure they find themselves in, this policy will eventually lead to downfall of western civilization as it takes more than just a few girders to hold up an entire bridge.
Maybe I am completely naive about this, but it doesn't seem like that hard of a problem to solve. Nielsen should work with cable box and satellite box manufactures/ and embed a viewing habit collection program to collect and send information back to whoever happens to care. This sound bad on the surface, but you make this program user enabled and if the user opts to share their viewing habits, that user's account is billed $5 less per month. The user, when opting in, would be presented with a screen that collects this household's demographic information such as family size, age and gender of the viewers etc, and once that is all setup, the user doesn't have to do anything but watch TV. No logs to keep, no extra boxes or contraptions to deal with. All of the current cable/satellite boxes already have the ability to send data back to mama (pay per view) so, whats a few more bytes of data.
All in all, I think we would all benefit because the networks would know which shows no one cares about and could adjust their programming quicker and the advertisers would have a better idea of how to reach their target demographic and how much they should be paying to do so.
To develop iPhone apps, you must have the following.
1. Intel based Mac or hackintosh. (there are ways around it but it's easier to stick with x86 macs)
2. Download the free iPhone SDK. This SDK includes Xcode which is the IDE that most mac devs use the iPhone cocoa touch libs and an iPhone simulator app to test certain kinds of apps.
3. Learn Objective-C and Cocoa Touch libraries (plenty of books for this)
4. Pay Apple $99/year to test your apps on an actual device and sell your completed app on the App Store.
5. Profit!
These words are as true today as they were in 1776.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
The government of Iran does what it chooses because the the people that live there allow it.
Apple does NOT have a monopoly. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on selling Macs is like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Mustangs. The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
Not true... It can be made to work on PPC macs with a few minor tweaks and the assistance of Pacifist. What you can't do is sign apps so that they can be run on an external device(the app signer isn't a universal binary). I use the sdk at home on my PPC powerbook, and check the code into my subversion repository, then when on an intel based Mac, sign the apps and test on the iPhone. Not ideal, but its better than nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what I would do if I made the most popular tablet on the market by a HUGE margin and then decided to come out with a smaller version. Hmm, would I worry about what a few cheapskate android using slashdotters thought, or would I would maintain my previously successful pricing strategy...what to do, what to do.
[super modUp:YES];
The entire point of the patent system is to grant an exclusive monopoly on an invention for a limited time to the inventor in exchange for divulging how it was done. Too bad if others can't compete due to this. If they can't compete because of this, that is further proof of the novelty of the invention and thus the inventing entity deserves the spoils all the more.
I think the patent has run out on the coffee tureen by now. However, I can see your point about similar products having a similar design, but Samsung took this to the extreme. Apple hasn't sued Motorola over the the Xoom's appearance because while similar in form factor, it didn't take practically every major design cue from Apple like the Galaxy did.... hell, even the packaging and power brick look the same. If you think that there should be no such thing as design patents, fine, argue that, but it's plain that Samsung copied Apple in this case.
It requires that any hardware manufacturers jump through the "Made for iPod/iPhone/iPad" process and licensing before their product can be marketed at being compatible. Yes, there are some costs incurred for the manufacturer that are paid to Apple, along with licensing royalties, but it also ensures that the device being connected behaves the way Apple needs it to behave (i.e., not drawing too much current, etc). Because their cable is proprietary, they can enforce this whereas if it were a micro-usb, they couldn't. This does have a lock-in effect though that I think you are overlooking. Think of all the iPod docks out there, or iPhone car mounts... Lets say you have entire home theatre tricked out and part of that system includes a nice, beautiful dock that only works with Apple's devices... If your iPod dies, what kind of device will you buy to ensure continued compatibility. Yes, this new dock port will force some to reconsider an apple product since their old docks won't work any more, but for those that do choose to buy into the new port, Apple has just locked in a large percentage of those users who might otherwise buy a samsung galaxy if not for the investment they already made.
citation please.
Hardly. Do you think Apple just magically shat out an OS and hardware a few weeks before the iPhone was released? All of that took quite a bit of time to write and develop before being released to the masses and since Apple didn't buy an already existing product to do it, I would say they started on it before Google purchased Android.
Yes, they should suck it up as your alternative traps everyone in a shitty system instead only the poor. Like it or not, life isn't fair and no amount of federal bureaucracy will fix that. Getting rid of the DOE and other federal departments that truly offer little or no value add for our way of life is a good first step.
Yes, being poor sucks... tell us something we don't know.
I guess that would depend on whether my private fork would somehow give me a competitive advantage or not. Would the iPad sell as well if anyone could have iOS running on any old tablet. I guess it just depends on what you are trying to do. Apple gives back to open source in many ways, but they certainly don't give back everything as that would negate their efforts in setting themselves apart.
I think you are mostly right. Amazon is really the only company currently capable of taking on Apple. If they were to do as you suggest and pretty much sell the Kindroids at cost, they could probably make a bit of coin on the content, but I think they would have to resort to a walled garden similar to Apple's for it to work. Yeah, you could probably the geek community side load apps and music (they would find a way around it anyway) but I wouldn't make it easy for the less savvy users. They will simply open up their app store app or music app and buy from amazon just like the Apple users do en mass. One thing they definitely would have to do though is make the process as seamless as possible because that is why the app store and iTMS took off.
Google owns dick. iPhone is the single most sold smartphone brand presently and Apple makes more than 50% of all smartphone profit and probably 80% to 90% of tablet profit. Google is giving Android away for free. Now if you were to say Samsung or HTC, then your comparison might be valid but Google only makes the OS, not the phones themselves. If you are going to throw in the whole of Android then it would more honest of you to at least count all iOS based devices too when talking about which mobile OS is reigning supreme at the moment.
What do you think these patent lawsuits are if not competing on innovation? I know it's not popular slashdot groupthink but patents are a way of staking claim to your innovations and preventing others from taking advantage of it in hopes that the resulting product will be better than the competition's. Apple is not your run of the mill patent troll. They actually make products incorporating these patentable inventions and I can't fault them for wanting to prevent other competing products from using those inventions.
Now I agree that software patents are a "bad idea," but not every patent lawsuit is about software patents. We all remember that Nokia managed to get a licensing out of Apple, so why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same for things they invented?
Therein lies the rub. Self-enrichment is a powerful motivator which often times spurs creativity which can not only reduce costs, but can also produce a superior product. It's a rare thing when the government actually does something well or efficiently, so I say lets give private enterprise a try and see what happens. Granted, it's not a sure thing... especially when the government starts messing with requirements and regulations and various inefficient procurement rules (ie, parts must be made in Alabama, assembled in North Dakota, and 47% of the parts must be from minority women owned businesses), but if they can mostly keep their hands off, it might just work.
Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Privileges are granted.
Wrong, Jobs said that the free bumpers were available to anyone anywhere who bought and iPhone4, it is NOT limited to the USA.
Requirements: Mac computer with an Intel processor - 1GB of RAM - DVD drive for installation - 5GB of available disk space....
Your Porche analogy doesn't hold water. Porche doesn't require that you agree to a license to purchase their engine, Apple does. If you do not abide by that license, Apple can and should take all steps to prevent you from using their software in a manner contrary to their license. You may not like the concept of licensing software, but that is the reality in todays intellectual property world. Also, Apple has done nothing the version of OS X currently installed on your Atom rig. Preventing you from upgrading to their next version is not the same thing as "somehow change the engine AFTER purchase." And keep in mind, you didn't purchase the software, you purchased a license for the use of their software.... and if you attempt to break the license, you use of that license is no longer valid.
And this was on Mac OSX Server Edition?
As the world continues to make scientific progress (albiet more slowly than theoretically possible, but that is acceptable), it will slowly become increasingly difficult for the unintelligent and uneducated to survive.
All things and people being equal, your point might actually be true. However, with the way that western societies have been doing anything and everything to ensure the survival of the weakest, laziest, most unfit of it's citizens at the expense of the rest of the population, I doubt your premise will come true while those states continue on their march towards socialist, nanny state policies. While social welfare programs tend to give folks a big warm and fuzzy, in the long run, it squeezes any incentive for trying to get ahead in life out of all but the most motivated of individuals. While it is definitely admirable that some individuals will continue to excel regardless of the social structure they find themselves in, this policy will eventually lead to downfall of western civilization as it takes more than just a few girders to hold up an entire bridge.
All in all, I think we would all benefit because the networks would know which shows no one cares about and could adjust their programming quicker and the advertisers would have a better idea of how to reach their target demographic and how much they should be paying to do so.
Easy peasy.
To develop iPhone apps, you must have the following. 1. Intel based Mac or hackintosh. (there are ways around it but it's easier to stick with x86 macs)
2. Download the free iPhone SDK. This SDK includes Xcode which is the IDE that most mac devs use the iPhone cocoa touch libs and an iPhone simulator app to test certain kinds of apps.
3. Learn Objective-C and Cocoa Touch libraries (plenty of books for this)
4. Pay Apple $99/year to test your apps on an actual device and sell your completed app on the App Store. 5. Profit!
The government of Iran does what it chooses because the the people that live there allow it.
Same here, mine has worked flawlessly.
Who says anything has to be done for free. Consider this Microsoft's contribution to the economic stimulus package.
Apple does NOT have a monopoly. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on selling Macs is like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Mustangs. The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
Not true... It can be made to work on PPC macs with a few minor tweaks and the assistance of Pacifist. What you can't do is sign apps so that they can be run on an external device(the app signer isn't a universal binary). I use the sdk at home on my PPC powerbook, and check the code into my subversion repository, then when on an intel based Mac, sign the apps and test on the iPhone. Not ideal, but its better than nothing.