It can - you just need adapters. For example, Apple's Thunderbolt display has a thunderbolt cable on one end and has USB/FW/Ethernet/Thunderbolt ports on the back - all serviced over the TB bus when you hook up a computer to the monitor.
It won't be long before there are stand-alone boxes like this (i.e., without the monitor) so you can just plug one cable in when you get to the office/home.
The beauty of Thunderbolt is that it can carry pretty much any protocol you need it to - all you have to do is adapt it on the other end. Whether it will take off remains to be seen - it is Intel's tech, so I expect it all start showing up on PC motherboards when the exclusive deal ends with Apple.
Read the comment again very carefully - we are talking about the wholesale copy of the iPhone here, not the bogus "slide to unlock" patent, or the other nebulous things going on, which I addressed at the very beginning of this.
Apple's case against Samsung is for making a copy of the iPhone as a whole item - hardware, software, form factor all together. The German court clearly agrees, hence the preliminary injunction which Samsung will clearly appeal.
This is *not* about individual patent issues (which are not a concern in Europe - we do not have software patent laws like the US), so the big palaver surrounding that is neither here nor there (they're all suing each other it seems).
This particular case is about straightforward "you made a phone that everyone reviewing it said 'hey, that looks an awfully lot like an iPhone, unlike phones from other Android handset makers'", not a "you copied our totally innovative slide to unlock feature".
Again, read my comment carefully - it is useful to read the whole thing and not just stop halfway through like you did when you first quoted it - I assume that you simply stopped reading there and rushed to post with a triumphant "owned!" LMGTFY-style link, when reading comprehension is important.
Just to make it clear, since reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you, I'll go with bullet points:
1) this case, I believe Apple has a legitimate complaint. They're blatantly making an iPhone and iPad ripoff. Plenty of other handset makers have managed to make rest-looking and performing (and popular) touch screen phones without them being iPhone copies. Apple has not sued them as a result. Any corporation is going to sue to protect its brands, and they felt they had enough of a case to do so with Samsung.
2) in the HTC case, I think their claims are bogus. I do not believe that things like sliding to unlock should be (or really can be) defended as unique and innovative to the point of patenting. Those lawsuits are not about stopping HTC selling Android phones though, as much as they are about two big corporations slugging it out - neither really has a case to make there.
If you want to debate, I suggest you quote the whole sentence. Here, I'll do it for you, since you don't seem to be capable of reading comprehension, but you're quick with the sarcastic "lmgtfy" comeback.
you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].
You know, pretty much the salient part of my whole post.
Everyone says that, out of context, as if it's "proof of the stupidity".
No, Apple is not saying you can't make rectangular phones with rounded corners - look at several of HTC's phones (also running Android, shock horror!) and note how they are not suing them for making a phone that looks like an iPhone.
It's all of the features *combined* - a distinctive rectangle with specific radius rounded corners being one of the several criteria - that cause Samsung's phone to be in breach (according to Apple, and it seems also the court in this case), not just one of those things, but all of them together.
This is akin to me releasing a cartoon about a yellow mouse called Bob - no problem. However, a black mouse with distinctive rounded ears called "Nicky"... well, I might be facing a lawsuit. The context is important.
"Ooh, the iPhone is selling well, when everyone said it would fail utterly.... maybe we should get on that!"
Heard in Samsung's offices shortly before releasing their "iPhone killer".
If Apple "can't", then Samsung are a step below that, copying the "can't" - perhaps not a winning strategy?
(you'll note that Apple aren't suing HTC because their Desire/Incredible/etc looks like an iPhone... - it's not a "war on Android" or anything, as much as/. would like to make it out to be).
Hilariously, Apple is also one of Samsung's biggest customers for memory and LCD panels.
And they had a point - Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone, to the point where practically every review mentioned it, so Apple sued them. Now, where it gets off track is that this is reported as "Apple trying to destroy Android" when it's really nothing of the sort - you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].
Although this story does show the amusing hypocrisy of slashdot where it's "good on Samsung! rar!" when they try to block iPhone sales and "boo! evil Apple! sue when you can't compete! you're running scared!" when Apple does the same thing.
Not that I think either company is coming off well here, but I assume their back room negotiations broke down before it got as far as court.
Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).
You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.
In terms of stabbings and home invasion, both are possible, but it's not like we have a rampant criminal problem because burglars are "unafraid of being shot".
Except it's total nonsense. Concealed carry laws do not make it somehow "safer" due to the deterrence factor - all it does is encourage criminals to arm themselves.
The UK has a very low death rate by firearms because it's simply not in our culture. Armed robbery is rare, civilian bystanders getting shot is even rarer (enough that it makes the national news for days when it happens).
Your solution to "curing this violence" is that people should be armed, and it's just laughably silly. Even though you *can* get handguns here for the purposes of crime, they are not being used in these riots - if they were entrenched in our culture (if many people carried them, and you could buy one at a local grocery store for example) then we'd have heard of many more than just the single police-inflicted shooting that we have seen so far.
Total number of people killed in these riots: 1 (by gunfire, fired by police)
Reason the riots started initially: fatal shooting by police of an allegedly unarmed man.
We're just not a gun culture, and good thing too - while there has been some considerable animosity flying around (including arson, throwing improvised missiles [bricks, bottles etc]) there have been almost no deaths. I cannot imagine that situation would be helped if every Have A Go Hero was armed (and by extension, the rioters themselves). Even just indiscriminate firing can result in serious consequences.
We *do* have an armed section of the police, but it is rare that they are used.
Yes, it's on the Android market - essentially, it's exactly the same smugness and arrogance that Linux users have and their opinions of people who "just don't get" why their phone should be rooted, or the condescension heaped on to the "idiot masses" who can't install from source.
Just take that, and put a black turtleneck on. You now fit the Apple User Stereotype that slashdot assumes the majority of iPhone and iPad users fit. It does make me wonder if they've ever actually met the majority of people who are buying these consumer-focused devices - people who are just happy they have something that works for them and they enjoy using. I'm not sure many of them really worry about what other people are using.
What do you mean "will shift their focus" to iOS? It's already on iOS, with Android development a distant second - love or hate the iOS ecosystem, but from a purely economic standpoint (as in, a developer wanting to make money in the mobile space), iOS is the number one focus.
I would change your comment to read "will put even less emphasis on non-iOS versions of their apps".
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "fact".
To claim the statement:
And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.
as a fact you have to prove objectively that Apple's product is inferior to "Android" (which, as Android fans have pointed out before is already on shaky ground, since Android is an OS and people use the term to refer to everything, including the hardware), and b) that Apple is litigating *instead* of working to make a better product.
If you are unable to prove both of those things true, then the quoted piece, as stated, is an opinion not a fact.
Marketing only works to a point. If your product is garbage, you might get some early sales due to marketing, but eventually you will be found out and word of mouth will spread, along with reviews and so on.
What happens with the iPhone is that *people actually like using it*, and people who don't have one who use one (either a friend's phone or by trying one out in the store) like it too - it does what they want it to do, and is easy and intuitive to use.
For someone who wants a smartphone, just using an iPhone for 15 minutes or so is enough to demonstrate that it a really nice and easy device to use. They didn't sell 100 million of them purely because of "status seekers" - especially since what are you really trying to say here? That the iPhone is exclusive enough to be a status symbol? There are a hundred million of them out there! How "exclusive"!
Aha, perhaps that is why I am not seeing it. We're certainly not uploading 6GB in that window - there is obviously various use going on, but the biggest upload streaming at that time of day is likely video chat, and that's hardly HD steaming:p
Slashdot Mirror
It can - you just need adapters. For example, Apple's Thunderbolt display has a thunderbolt cable on one end and has USB/FW/Ethernet/Thunderbolt ports on the back - all serviced over the TB bus when you hook up a computer to the monitor.
It won't be long before there are stand-alone boxes like this (i.e., without the monitor) so you can just plug one cable in when you get to the office/home.
The beauty of Thunderbolt is that it can carry pretty much any protocol you need it to - all you have to do is adapt it on the other end. Whether it will take off remains to be seen - it is Intel's tech, so I expect it all start showing up on PC motherboards when the exclusive deal ends with Apple.
I am certain that very few people will peruse your comment.
And in true slashdot fashion, no matter what Apple do, trolls on /. will find fault with it somehow.
"They made it so that a phone could *make calls!*, oh how 'innovative' of them!"
*rest-looking = great-looking
Autocorrect failure.
Read the comment again very carefully - we are talking about the wholesale copy of the iPhone here, not the bogus "slide to unlock" patent, or the other nebulous things going on, which I addressed at the very beginning of this.
Apple's case against Samsung is for making a copy of the iPhone as a whole item - hardware, software, form factor all together. The German court clearly agrees, hence the preliminary injunction which Samsung will clearly appeal.
This is *not* about individual patent issues (which are not a concern in Europe - we do not have software patent laws like the US), so the big palaver surrounding that is neither here nor there (they're all suing each other it seems).
This particular case is about straightforward "you made a phone that everyone reviewing it said 'hey, that looks an awfully lot like an iPhone, unlike phones from other Android handset makers'", not a "you copied our totally innovative slide to unlock feature".
Again, read my comment carefully - it is useful to read the whole thing and not just stop halfway through like you did when you first quoted it - I assume that you simply stopped reading there and rushed to post with a triumphant "owned!" LMGTFY-style link, when reading comprehension is important.
Just to make it clear, since reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you, I'll go with bullet points:
1) this case, I believe Apple has a legitimate complaint. They're blatantly making an iPhone and iPad ripoff. Plenty of other handset makers have managed to make rest-looking and performing (and popular) touch screen phones without them being iPhone copies. Apple has not sued them as a result. Any corporation is going to sue to protect its brands, and they felt they had enough of a case to do so with Samsung.
2) in the HTC case, I think their claims are bogus. I do not believe that things like sliding to unlock should be (or really can be) defended as unique and innovative to the point of patenting. Those lawsuits are not about stopping HTC selling Android phones though, as much as they are about two big corporations slugging it out - neither really has a case to make there.
Nice selective quoting there.
If you want to debate, I suggest you quote the whole sentence. Here, I'll do it for you, since you don't seem to be capable of reading comprehension, but you're quick with the sarcastic "lmgtfy" comeback.
you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].
You know, pretty much the salient part of my whole post.
Nice try though, I'll give you 3/10 for effort.
Everyone says that, out of context, as if it's "proof of the stupidity".
No, Apple is not saying you can't make rectangular phones with rounded corners - look at several of HTC's phones (also running Android, shock horror!) and note how they are not suing them for making a phone that looks like an iPhone.
It's all of the features *combined* - a distinctive rectangle with specific radius rounded corners being one of the several criteria - that cause Samsung's phone to be in breach (according to Apple, and it seems also the court in this case), not just one of those things, but all of them together.
This is akin to me releasing a cartoon about a yellow mouse called Bob - no problem. However, a black mouse with distinctive rounded ears called "Nicky"... well, I might be facing a lawsuit. The context is important.
"Ooh, the iPhone is selling well, when everyone said it would fail utterly.... maybe we should get on that!"
Heard in Samsung's offices shortly before releasing their "iPhone killer".
If Apple "can't", then Samsung are a step below that, copying the "can't" - perhaps not a winning strategy?
(you'll note that Apple aren't suing HTC because their Desire/Incredible/etc looks like an iPhone... - it's not a "war on Android" or anything, as much as /. would like to make it out to be).
Hilariously, Apple is also one of Samsung's biggest customers for memory and LCD panels.
And they had a point - Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone, to the point where practically every review mentioned it, so Apple sued them. Now, where it gets off track is that this is reported as "Apple trying to destroy Android" when it's really nothing of the sort - you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].
Although this story does show the amusing hypocrisy of slashdot where it's "good on Samsung! rar!" when they try to block iPhone sales and "boo! evil Apple! sue when you can't compete! you're running scared!" when Apple does the same thing.
Not that I think either company is coming off well here, but I assume their back room negotiations broke down before it got as far as court.
Why would that make them attack the Galaxy Tab then?
Oh, I see!
There were;t many *reported* cases.
Crime stats from 100 years ago are about as reliable as Oracle in a "we got your back on this patent shit" fight.
Yes, because recorded statistics were much more... "lax"... back then.
Remember, with great Power comes great current squared times resistance.
Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).
That's from the Daily Mail. i.e., it's almost certain to be false.
My own google-fu tells me there are 2 Popes per square kilometre in the Vatican. Statistics eh?
You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.
In terms of stabbings and home invasion, both are possible, but it's not like we have a rampant criminal problem because burglars are "unafraid of being shot".
Except it's total nonsense. Concealed carry laws do not make it somehow "safer" due to the deterrence factor - all it does is encourage criminals to arm themselves.
The UK has a very low death rate by firearms because it's simply not in our culture. Armed robbery is rare, civilian bystanders getting shot is even rarer (enough that it makes the national news for days when it happens).
Your solution to "curing this violence" is that people should be armed, and it's just laughably silly. Even though you *can* get handguns here for the purposes of crime, they are not being used in these riots - if they were entrenched in our culture (if many people carried them, and you could buy one at a local grocery store for example) then we'd have heard of many more than just the single police-inflicted shooting that we have seen so far.
Can't tell if trolling.... ....or just stupid.
Total number of people killed in these riots: 1 (by gunfire, fired by police)
Reason the riots started initially: fatal shooting by police of an allegedly unarmed man.
We're just not a gun culture, and good thing too - while there has been some considerable animosity flying around (including arson, throwing improvised missiles [bricks, bottles etc]) there have been almost no deaths. I cannot imagine that situation would be helped if every Have A Go Hero was armed (and by extension, the rioters themselves). Even just indiscriminate firing can result in serious consequences.
We *do* have an armed section of the police, but it is rare that they are used.
Yes, it's on the Android market - essentially, it's exactly the same smugness and arrogance that Linux users have and their opinions of people who "just don't get" why their phone should be rooted, or the condescension heaped on to the "idiot masses" who can't install from source.
Just take that, and put a black turtleneck on. You now fit the Apple User Stereotype that slashdot assumes the majority of iPhone and iPad users fit. It does make me wonder if they've ever actually met the majority of people who are buying these consumer-focused devices - people who are just happy they have something that works for them and they enjoy using. I'm not sure many of them really worry about what other people are using.
What do you mean "will shift their focus" to iOS? It's already on iOS, with Android development a distant second - love or hate the iOS ecosystem, but from a purely economic standpoint (as in, a developer wanting to make money in the mobile space), iOS is the number one focus.
I would change your comment to read "will put even less emphasis on non-iOS versions of their apps".
No, it really is an opinion.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "fact".
To claim the statement:
And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.
as a fact you have to prove objectively that Apple's product is inferior to "Android" (which, as Android fans have pointed out before is already on shaky ground, since Android is an OS and people use the term to refer to everything, including the hardware), and b) that Apple is litigating *instead* of working to make a better product.
If you are unable to prove both of those things true, then the quoted piece, as stated, is an opinion not a fact.
Marketing only works to a point. If your product is garbage, you might get some early sales due to marketing, but eventually you will be found out and word of mouth will spread, along with reviews and so on.
What happens with the iPhone is that *people actually like using it*, and people who don't have one who use one (either a friend's phone or by trying one out in the store) like it too - it does what they want it to do, and is easy and intuitive to use.
For someone who wants a smartphone, just using an iPhone for 15 minutes or so is enough to demonstrate that it a really nice and easy device to use. They didn't sell 100 million of them purely because of "status seekers" - especially since what are you really trying to say here? That the iPhone is exclusive enough to be a status symbol? There are a hundred million of them out there! How "exclusive"!
"oppressive tax burden" - I stopped reading right there.
Don't let facts get in the way of your tea bagger talking points.
Aha, perhaps that is why I am not seeing it. We're certainly not uploading 6GB in that window - there is obviously various use going on, but the biggest upload streaming at that time of day is likely video chat, and that's hardly HD steaming :p