and 73% of worldwide does not spell "THRIVE" to you?
Where did I claim otherwise? I'll state it explicitly: Android as a whole is thriving right now.
However, that does not mean that it will remain that way for more than just the giant players, and a series of competitors that are being seen to "not make it" or just find it more effort than it's worth are going to cause a problem.
The way it looks now, Android is in a position where there are some high end flagship phones of high quality, and a large number of race-to-the-bottom junk - almost a perfect parallel to the PC industry as a whole. Whether this is a good thing in the long run, who knows? Thin-margin consumer electronics is a tricky business.
Why don't you let me know when Google starts paying a dividend, ok fuckwit.
Whining? What?
Point out where I was whining about dividends one way or the other. Quote the exact text, not just your interpretation of what you think I mean. That's not how quoting works.
Maybe because you want the company, and the android ecosystem as a whole, to thrive?
LOOKS LIKE IT'S A THRIVIN'!
Yes, and that's a great thing as long as those in it are actually making money and won't end up having to withdraw. HTC's current troubles are indicative of this. If the Android ecosystem ends up just being Samsung as the major player and then a few others fighting for the scraps then it will stagnate.
Do you care if the company that makes your other things profits?
I am at odds with these companies, I am trying to get the best price for the best goods. They are trying to get the most money.
Maybe because you want the company, and the android ecosystem as a whole, to thrive?
If you are short sighted enough to not care if the product is sustainable for the company that makes it then you'll end up with things like the abandoned HP tablet, sold off below cost and left to wilt on the vine because they were not a moneymaking proposition. If you want more than just the thing right in front of you right this second, you have to look beyond your own selfishness for a few seconds.
I think that speaks more to how overpriced Apple products are. How do you think that they have $100 billion in cash?
Not really. I think it speaks to the nature of the market Apple sells into. The iPhone is similarly priced to phones like the Galaxy SIII and other top tier Android handsets, but the 73% of global marketshare is certainly not all phones of the SIII's calibre - there are going to be a lot of much cheaper phones in there (Samsung itself sells a cheaper baby brother version of the S-class).
Apple makes the bulk of the cash because it focuses on a small slice of the market, with a highly tuned product (ie, with few options) and in certain markets (such as the US) accounts for 40% or more of the market with that small line.
They have $100 billion in cash because they've been sitting on it it for some time not paying dividends (although they do now), and having multiple highly profitable product lines since the launch of the original iMac.
The fact remains, that the iPhone costs almost the same as a top Android handset. It costs *a lot* more than the average Android handset price though... but so does the SIII.
Note the subtle points of the article. Those were applications for broad trademarks that cover more than one area.
The Woolworths case was done to death - they applied for a trademark that covered all business areas, including the one that Apple worked in. Apple is obligated to challenge that (per the rules of trademarks) or risk setting a precedent that it does not care about its mark, and making future trademark claims weaker.
Woolworths is fine to have a trademark on "Apple" in all areas of business *except* computers - that is why Apple challenged it, which is exactly what I've been talking about all along.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
A company named Apple who sues the shit out of everyone who dares to use an image or name of a common fruit in anything is getting told they can't have a common name in their app store.
bhah hah hah hah.
How is it hilarious?
It's a textbook case of trademark protection by Ravensberger. How else is it meant to go? You can argue that the trademark is too generic, but that tends to be quite relaxed (see, Windows, Apple, Word, Android etc as examples of pretty generic trademark words) given that the trademarks are limited to specific areas of business (so, Bob Smith could open a store called "Android Car Parts" but *not* a store called "Android Cellphone Parts").
Note that it only applies to games, and only in countries where the trademark is registered.
Companies do not own words because they used them first. It's one thing to outright steal the name of a product. It's another thing to claim you own every word in that product's name.
No you're right, they don't.
They do if they trademark them, however, but only in the relevant areas of business (eg, "Memory" in the context of games, not in the context of hardware for computers).
I merely told you to do the world a favour and end your worthless existence. There was no hostility about it.
Godwin's Law states nothing of the sort. You just invented your interpretation right now because you knew you had no argument. When you can't have your way, you throw a little tantrum, plug your ears and declare victory, like the little child you are.
By the way, you still haven't refuted anything. You're just like Apple, you stir up conflict and then try to pretend the other person was the one who did. I also have to wonder if you are a Nazi sympathizer, what with trying to quash all discussion about the historical events of Jews being murdered.
You still keep forgetting to log in, and relying on ad hominem attacks. I'm going to start believing you lack the ability to do anything else. You can do better, come on.
I'd point out the difference between Godwin's Law and the those who invoke it, but I fear it will be lost in your inability to argue back with anything other than "you should kill yourself". Subtle arguments like that are so deft I can barely muster a comeback! Your oratory skills are second to non you brave, anonymous sir!
No account, no opinion. That's even more pathetic that simply refusing to log in because you don't want to attract down mods.
There are plenty of sites that work just fine going beyond the resolution of a common HDTV panel. Your arguments now that it has been pointed out that Apple stopped using JS trickery to force scrolling, is that they are somehow *still* in the wrong for having a large advert on their front page.
In other words, Apple can't win. If they posted it at the top of the page you'd find some reason that Apple were at fault - I have already seen comments that the colour of the font is somehow "wrong".
Look, Apple did deliberately try to get around the original ruling, but have now finally done it properly. At some point the incessant frothing over everything they do has got to end.
What next, you'll complain that Apple "hides" its prices by forcing you to scroll on the individual product pages and is thus responsible for deceptive advertising?
Damn son, you have an excuse for everything, don't you? Face it, you got owned, multiple times. Now be a good sport about it, STFU and try to learn something with that atrophied brain of yours.
Still with the ad hominem attacks and lack of real argument, and you *still* can't find the log in button!
if you can't even stand behind your arguments with something as trivial as a slashdot account.
A slashdot account isn't an argument, and it's not a citation. The parent isn't making any claims based on his own expertise or reputation, so his identity is completely irrelevant. Unless you're just trying to make more personal attacks, which around here is more than likely the case.
No, an account isn't an argument, but his posting history can be relevant to the conversation (goodness knows it is very important to anti apple haters).
Anonymously posted arguments are therefore worthless.
If my posting history is so important in determining my validity as a poster then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless hypocrisy is a virtue to the apple hater.
Also highly amusing to be accused of wanting to make personal attacks from an AC. How brave of you!
Apple are in contempt because they didn't do what they were ordered to do. Any web developer worth their salary knows how to create a page that is resolution independent. It may be an idea for you to abstain from pursuing further discourse along these lines because it is evident that you lack the requisite knowledge to continue in any meaningful way.
Of course any web designer knows how to make resolution independent pages, but now you're changing your argument. There is no longer code that forces scrolling, even in the event of large resolution displays, but now apparently it is *still* not adequate because you have to scroll on monitors with low resolution.
You're just looking for an excuse to find fault, and presumably also for your slashdot password. You can reset it if you forgot it you know.
The ad wasn't just big, it changed sizes as you resized the window, while the same ad on the US site did not.
Like I said initially, it does not do that any more, but then suddenly the argument switched to "oh, well you still have to scroll on 90% of people's monitors". You know, whatever argument works to make Apple the bad guy, if other arguments are dismissed.
There is no debate to be had. It is a fact that scrolling is required at resolutions that 99.9% of the population are running at. You also forgot to post your real name instead of hiding behind an alias.
Haha, so Apple are in contempt because many people have small monitors? Ok, kid, whatever you say.
You still haven't logged in! Do you need some help?
Such a typical Apple shill fact fabricating manoeuver. I know I shouldn't pick on the mentally challenged, but you obviously don't know what Godwin's Law states, so I'll educate you:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
So yeah, you fail at reading, comprehension, technology, taste, heterosexuality and life. You just fail. Utterly. Go kill yourself.
Such hostility in a simple discussion. It must be exhausting to get through the day for you if your response to losing a discussion online is to tell your opponent to commit suicide. Hilarious, kid.
It is well understood that the person who invokes Godwin's Law is the one who loses the argument, and of course you know this since you went to the trouble of getting the definition, and now you're reduced to simple ad hominem attacks.
You're still forgetting to log in though. This is like playing scrabble against your 5 year old sibling.
This is just douchiness and intentionally trying to hide it by saying "well we just naturally had a bigass add, it wasn't being re-sized anymore!"
But they do - the homepage has always been a huge advert, unless it's something for a special event (like the anniversary of Jobs' death, or a major product launch).
I think the judge has not yet said the final word. This sanction is only for the delayed newspaper ads and the non-compliant website ad. When they find the message in the UK homepage is specially designed to make the message invisible except after scrolling; the judge might impose more sanctions and maybe even fines. The subsequent javascript edit does not hide the fact that the UK page is differently designed compared to other pages.Apple's mischief has not stopped, yet...
It doesn't do that any more. Apple took out the JS code that makes that happen. Now it's just underneath their other homepage material, but you have to scroll to see it if your monitor is too small. If you have a giant monitor and plenty of space it is visible without scrolling. I guess someone gave them a kick up the ass and told them to just stop messing around with it and just get it over and done with.
Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).
With the crucial difference being that when we who are anti-Apple post how much Apple sucks and how they should die, (as a company,) we're RIGHT.
You missed off "in our opinion" from that sentence. Quite a crucial difference. You also forgot to log in. Hard to be "RIGHT", in capitals, if you can't even stand behind your arguments with something as trivial as a slashdot account.
For the record: Apple in the wrong here. Should have simply done what the judge ordered without any messing around, even with all the publicity surrounding this.
Slashdot Mirror
and 73% of worldwide does not spell "THRIVE" to you?
Where did I claim otherwise? I'll state it explicitly: Android as a whole is thriving right now.
However, that does not mean that it will remain that way for more than just the giant players, and a series of competitors that are being seen to "not make it" or just find it more effort than it's worth are going to cause a problem.
The way it looks now, Android is in a position where there are some high end flagship phones of high quality, and a large number of race-to-the-bottom junk - almost a perfect parallel to the PC industry as a whole. Whether this is a good thing in the long run, who knows? Thin-margin consumer electronics is a tricky business.
> whining about Apple's dividends
Why don't you let me know when Google starts paying a dividend, ok fuckwit.
Whining? What?
Point out where I was whining about dividends one way or the other. Quote the exact text, not just your interpretation of what you think I mean. That's not how quoting works.
Also, you should probably log in.
Maybe because you want the company, and the android ecosystem as a whole, to thrive?
LOOKS LIKE IT'S A THRIVIN'!
Yes, and that's a great thing as long as those in it are actually making money and won't end up having to withdraw. HTC's current troubles are indicative of this. If the Android ecosystem ends up just being Samsung as the major player and then a few others fighting for the scraps then it will stagnate.
Why would you care?
Do you care if the company that makes your other things profits?
I am at odds with these companies, I am trying to get the best price for the best goods. They are trying to get the most money.
Maybe because you want the company, and the android ecosystem as a whole, to thrive?
If you are short sighted enough to not care if the product is sustainable for the company that makes it then you'll end up with things like the abandoned HP tablet, sold off below cost and left to wilt on the vine because they were not a moneymaking proposition. If you want more than just the thing right in front of you right this second, you have to look beyond your own selfishness for a few seconds.
I think that speaks more to how overpriced Apple products are. How do you think that they have $100 billion in cash?
Not really. I think it speaks to the nature of the market Apple sells into. The iPhone is similarly priced to phones like the Galaxy SIII and other top tier Android handsets, but the 73% of global marketshare is certainly not all phones of the SIII's calibre - there are going to be a lot of much cheaper phones in there (Samsung itself sells a cheaper baby brother version of the S-class).
Apple makes the bulk of the cash because it focuses on a small slice of the market, with a highly tuned product (ie, with few options) and in certain markets (such as the US) accounts for 40% or more of the market with that small line.
They have $100 billion in cash because they've been sitting on it it for some time not paying dividends (although they do now), and having multiple highly profitable product lines since the launch of the original iMac.
The fact remains, that the iPhone costs almost the same as a top Android handset. It costs *a lot* more than the average Android handset price though... but so does the SIII.
Note the subtle points of the article. Those were applications for broad trademarks that cover more than one area.
The Woolworths case was done to death - they applied for a trademark that covered all business areas, including the one that Apple worked in. Apple is obligated to challenge that (per the rules of trademarks) or risk setting a precedent that it does not care about its mark, and making future trademark claims weaker.
Woolworths is fine to have a trademark on "Apple" in all areas of business *except* computers - that is why Apple challenged it, which is exactly what I've been talking about all along.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
Yes, Google can do no wrong. Any instances of where they seem to be the bad guys is because you haven't understood it right.
"You're understanding it wrong!"
Commenting to this post in English will result in legal action.
In what business area, or as a generic all-encompassing trademark? If the latter, how did you convince them to grant it?
A company named Apple who sues the shit out of everyone who dares to use an image or name of a common fruit in anything is getting told they can't have a common name in their app store.
bhah hah hah hah.
How is it hilarious?
It's a textbook case of trademark protection by Ravensberger. How else is it meant to go? You can argue that the trademark is too generic, but that tends to be quite relaxed (see, Windows, Apple, Word, Android etc as examples of pretty generic trademark words) given that the trademarks are limited to specific areas of business (so, Bob Smith could open a store called "Android Car Parts" but *not* a store called "Android Cellphone Parts").
Note that it only applies to games, and only in countries where the trademark is registered.
Is apple going to remove DRAM (memory) from their iPhones?
Or the description in the Settings that shows how much - gasp - memory you have!
No.
Trademarks are area specific.
Much like "Apple Computer" and "Apple Records" and "Apple Juice Corp" and "Apple Engine Parts Inc".
Companies do not own words because they used them first. It's one thing to outright steal the name of a product. It's another thing to claim you own every word in that product's name.
No you're right, they don't.
They do if they trademark them, however, but only in the relevant areas of business (eg, "Memory" in the context of games, not in the context of hardware for computers).
and all of those can be used in the name of a game
But not in their trademarked context.
You just try launching your own smartphone OS called "Android" and see what happens.
I merely told you to do the world a favour and end your worthless existence. There was no hostility about it.
Godwin's Law states nothing of the sort. You just invented your interpretation right now because you knew you had no argument. When you can't have your way, you throw a little tantrum, plug your ears and declare victory, like the little child you are.
By the way, you still haven't refuted anything. You're just like Apple, you stir up conflict and then try to pretend the other person was the one who did. I also have to wonder if you are a Nazi sympathizer, what with trying to quash all discussion about the historical events of Jews being murdered.
You still keep forgetting to log in, and relying on ad hominem attacks. I'm going to start believing you lack the ability to do anything else. You can do better, come on.
I'd point out the difference between Godwin's Law and the those who invoke it, but I fear it will be lost in your inability to argue back with anything other than "you should kill yourself". Subtle arguments like that are so deft I can barely muster a comeback! Your oratory skills are second to non you brave, anonymous sir!
No account, no opinion. That's even more pathetic that simply refusing to log in because you don't want to attract down mods.
There are plenty of sites that work just fine going beyond the resolution of a common HDTV panel. Your arguments now that it has been pointed out that Apple stopped using JS trickery to force scrolling, is that they are somehow *still* in the wrong for having a large advert on their front page.
In other words, Apple can't win. If they posted it at the top of the page you'd find some reason that Apple were at fault - I have already seen comments that the colour of the font is somehow "wrong".
Look, Apple did deliberately try to get around the original ruling, but have now finally done it properly. At some point the incessant frothing over everything they do has got to end.
What next, you'll complain that Apple "hides" its prices by forcing you to scroll on the individual product pages and is thus responsible for deceptive advertising?
Damn son, you have an excuse for everything, don't you? Face it, you got owned, multiple times. Now be a good sport about it, STFU and try to learn something with that atrophied brain of yours.
Still with the ad hominem attacks and lack of real argument, and you *still* can't find the log in button!
Come, on, you can do better than this!
if you can't even stand behind your arguments with something as trivial as a slashdot account.
A slashdot account isn't an argument, and it's not a citation. The parent isn't making any claims based on his own expertise or reputation, so his identity is completely irrelevant. Unless you're just trying to make more personal attacks, which around here is more than likely the case.
No, an account isn't an argument, but his posting history can be relevant to the conversation (goodness knows it is very important to anti apple haters).
Anonymously posted arguments are therefore worthless.
If my posting history is so important in determining my validity as a poster then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless hypocrisy is a virtue to the apple hater.
Also highly amusing to be accused of wanting to make personal attacks from an AC. How brave of you!
Because my 1920x1200 display is tiny and outdated. (it's off the bottom of the screen for me)
Yes, your monitor is tiny and outdated. Try not to feel bad. I guess that's what you can't see the "log in" button too, right?
Apple are in contempt because they didn't do what they were ordered to do. Any web developer worth their salary knows how to create a page that is resolution independent. It may be an idea for you to abstain from pursuing further discourse along these lines because it is evident that you lack the requisite knowledge to continue in any meaningful way.
Of course any web designer knows how to make resolution independent pages, but now you're changing your argument. There is no longer code that forces scrolling, even in the event of large resolution displays, but now apparently it is *still* not adequate because you have to scroll on monitors with low resolution.
You're just looking for an excuse to find fault, and presumably also for your slashdot password. You can reset it if you forgot it you know.
The ad wasn't just big, it changed sizes as you resized the window, while the same ad on the US site did not.
Like I said initially, it does not do that any more, but then suddenly the argument switched to "oh, well you still have to scroll on 90% of people's monitors". You know, whatever argument works to make Apple the bad guy, if other arguments are dismissed.
There is no debate to be had. It is a fact that scrolling is required at resolutions that 99.9% of the population are running at. You also forgot to post your real name instead of hiding behind an alias.
Haha, so Apple are in contempt because many people have small monitors? Ok, kid, whatever you say.
You still haven't logged in! Do you need some help?
Such a typical Apple shill fact fabricating manoeuver. I know I shouldn't pick on the mentally challenged, but you obviously don't know what Godwin's Law states, so I'll educate you:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
So yeah, you fail at reading, comprehension, technology, taste, heterosexuality and life. You just fail. Utterly. Go kill yourself.
Such hostility in a simple discussion. It must be exhausting to get through the day for you if your response to losing a discussion online is to tell your opponent to commit suicide. Hilarious, kid.
It is well understood that the person who invokes Godwin's Law is the one who loses the argument, and of course you know this since you went to the trouble of getting the definition, and now you're reduced to simple ad hominem attacks.
You're still forgetting to log in though. This is like playing scrabble against your 5 year old sibling.
In our opinion, Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews.
You win the Godwin award, and thus hand the victory to the Apple fans you seem to hate so much. You also forgot to log in!
I accept your concession of the debate and your belief that I am right. Cheers.
you have to scroll to see it if your monitor is too small.
I've got a 23" monitor running at 1920 × 1080 resolution. I still have to scroll. Roughly are running at resolutions of the same height or less.
This is just douchiness and intentionally trying to hide it by saying "well we just naturally had a bigass add, it wasn't being re-sized anymore!"
But they do - the homepage has always been a huge advert, unless it's something for a special event (like the anniversary of Jobs' death, or a major product launch).
Your second sentence makes no sense.
You also forgot to log in.
Maybe fix those issues, then we can debate.
I think the judge has not yet said the final word. This sanction is only for the delayed newspaper ads and the non-compliant website ad. When they find the message in the UK homepage is specially designed to make the message invisible except after scrolling; the judge might impose more sanctions and maybe even fines. The subsequent javascript edit does not hide the fact that the UK page is differently designed compared to other pages.Apple's mischief has not stopped, yet...
It doesn't do that any more. Apple took out the JS code that makes that happen. Now it's just underneath their other homepage material, but you have to scroll to see it if your monitor is too small. If you have a giant monitor and plenty of space it is visible without scrolling. I guess someone gave them a kick up the ass and told them to just stop messing around with it and just get it over and done with.
Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).
With the crucial difference being that when we who are anti-Apple post how much Apple sucks and how they should die, (as a company,) we're RIGHT.
You missed off "in our opinion" from that sentence. Quite a crucial difference. You also forgot to log in. Hard to be "RIGHT", in capitals, if you can't even stand behind your arguments with something as trivial as a slashdot account.
For the record: Apple in the wrong here. Should have simply done what the judge ordered without any messing around, even with all the publicity surrounding this.