Probably not; those are very specific criteria for evil.
I am pretty certain those were examples. You can dismiss any example (used to establish a pattern) by claiming that particular example is used as too odd a criterion. Of course, when you do that, you can't claim objectivity.
I also wasn't aware that Apple personally employed the police department responsible for investigating a criminal act involving Gizmodo and the purchase of stolen property. Good to know. How are they managing to keep it funded and yet still remain enormously profitable?
Even you yourself don't believe this argument.
No, I clearly don't because it's not an argument; it's hyperbole in response to the GP's hyperbole that Apple are "evil" for "kicking down the door of a journalist". Unless Apple are direct employers of the police department that went to investigate that offence then Apple did no such thing. It reported the theft/loss of property like any other company and the police in the appropriate jurisdiction carried out their job and investigated the crime. It was pretty easy for them, given that Gizmodo didn't exactly hide what they'd done.
Either way Apple didn't "kick down the door of a journalist", so claiming they are evil because of doing so is a total non-starter.
Yawn. Try a new trolling method kid. Not bonch, never been bonch, never been paid to post on slashdot. You also forgot to log in. Maybe you left your slashdot password with all that evidence you also forgot to present.
Either way, thermonuclear destruction "at all costs" (according to Steve's original vent) doesn't require that you're profitable, just that the other guy is gone.
Apple didn't hit the expectations that the analysts were guessing at in this quarter, but that doesn't mean they're wilting - sales are up, and strong in all segments except for the much-aged iPod. Their PC business is growing in a stagnant industry overall (and their new retina MBP still has a two week waiting list), they are selling iPhones and iPads almost as fast as they can make them.
I'm not sure what definition of "wilting" you're using?
Goodness, what are you smoking? It would be unusable! Although, if they were going for the Android user experience maybe it's a great idea!
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKE (not even a very good one).
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. iOS6 won't run "just fine" on the original iPhone, or even the 3G. The earliest phone it supports is the 3GS, and even then it's going to be missing one or two of the more resource-hungry features.
Did Google kick in the door of a journalist yet? Did Google "suicide" a factory worker who lost a phone prototype? Did Google try to strongarm an environmental organization? Did Larry park in the disabled spot?
Probably not; those are very specific criteria for evil.
Did Apple deliberately go against user settings to set third party advertising and tracking cookies on computers by exploiting a browser bug?
And you're seriously blaming Apple for the alleged murder of a third party factory employee (I assume that's what you're implying - that Apple paid to have a worker killed, or had someone in-house go and do it) due to a lost prototype? What reality do you live in?
I also wasn't aware that Apple personally employed the police department responsible for investigating a criminal act involving Gizmodo and the purchase of stolen property. Good to know. How are they managing to keep it funded and yet still remain enormously profitable?
Wait, are you saying that Gizmodo's door *shouldn't* have been "kicked in" (in reality, they knocked) to investigate a crime? In your world it's fine for the police to ignore the report of a crime and very public evidence posted by the suspects themselves? Not sure how this is "evil"? Maybe you can fill me in?
And parking in a disabled spot when it's not needed is very annoying. It's as bad as people who park on double yellows or in a fire lane.
Google was able to provide turn-by-turn directions for years (and did for Android). Rumor has it that Apple wouldn't let them release it for iOS even though Google offered to do it for free. Speculation at the time was that Apple didn't want maps to be too good so that when Apple released its own maps later it'd seem like an upgrade. That seems to be exactly how it played out.
Cool story bro.
How did this get +2 interesting?
It's well known via many publicly accessible sources that Google's terms didn't allow turn-by-turn on iOS (or any other third party app service) without prior consent of Google.
By "rumour has it" you really mean "my predetermined bias towards Google and against Apple means that I'll just make a wild assed guess that paints Google as a the good guy" right?
In reality, Apple negotiated for the right to include turn-by-turn, but they couldn't agree to Google's terms. At no point ever was Google offering it "for free". You also don't seem to understand that the Google maps app on iOS is actually written by Apple. Why would Apple "[not] allow them to release it" on iOS when Apple themselves write the app and just licence access to the maps API from Google?
Galaxy Nexus outputs HD video over the USB connector using MHL. Either get a dongle that converts MHL to HDMI or use a receiving device that has MHL built in. There you go.
Nice. Connection agnostic standard, so I assume the phone reassigns the pins as necessary depending on the device on the other end of the cable. That's cool.
No, it doesn't. When the USB cable is plugged in (the one that comes with the phone and has a USB port on one end and the 30 pin port on the other) only the USB data pins and the USB power pins - 4 out of the total 30 are connected.
Actually, the ground pin is probably also connected to the shielding. Five pins.
The other pins connect when other things are connected, like a docking port on a music system will have the power pins, the accessory control and the line out pins connected. The HDMI adapter will connect to other pins, the video adapter will connect to the line out pins and the video pins.
The USB cable with the standard USB port on the end *absolutely does not* convert all those things down so that they work over USB. It connects the two data pins and the 5V power only.
Or you'll just use the adapter that the same sources are reporting is also in production alongside the new port.
Just like the Magsafe 2 > Magsafe adapter for $10 that launched alongside the new Magsafe port on the retina Macbook Pro and the new Air.
It's not about "increasing revenues", it's about the first thing you said - "better design etc" since they can get rid of several pins that they don't use any more (like firewire data and power, among others).
Not everything is an evil conspiracy to fleece people.
I'm sorry, Gizmodo loving Apple?! What world do you live in?
Or has the whole "Apple are snubbing us because we didn't get free press passes to WWDC after we tried to ransom their stolen iPhone prototype" thing been swept under the rug?
The current connector is 10 years old and contains several useless pins - like the firewire data and power connectors. With a change in the connector (and adding an adapter for the 30 pin ports and cables) they can add new things like USB3 that customers might actually want, instead of being stuck with a port that supports a data protocol that no iOS device has supported in years.
Why would they? The iPod/iPhone/iPad power adapter has a standard USB port on it. Why buy a new power adapter when you can just get a new cable with the (alleged) new 19 pin port on it? Alternatively just use an adapter - the same sources talking about the new 19 pin connection have also "confirmed" an adapter.
There's no reason to think that the new 19 pin port cable will be any different to the current 30 pin cable - for basic charging and syncing, Apple supplies a power supply with a USB port on it and a cable that can connect to it or your computer's USB port. All that's changing is the proprietary end.
The current 30 pin has all sorts along with USB - composite video, stereo line out, firewire data and power (now unused), ipod accessory control, etc. It's much more than just a micro USB port, but it is overkill now that there's no need for the firewire pins, for example.
The same sources that have said there will be a new port have also said that an adapter is also in the works.
With all the outspoken Apple fanboys touting how great IOS and OSX are, being Apple apologists for Apple's patent trolling, and mocking Android and linux, how should I react to this situation? How about this: HAHA IN YOUR FACE!
Yeah, IN YOUR FACE Apple because developers were lazy and didn't verify receipts! It's totally Apple's fault that developers didn't use the provided security tools!
Given that we're being so charitable, it's totally Linux's fault if you turn on SSH and set your root password as "password", right? Just checking.
But that's the reason it's a design patent - it can be very similar to something else, or even reference previously released products within the patent. The issue, as you say, is how generic the filing that Apple made was. It doesn't mean that design patents for something that has to take that shape are invalid - all of the design patents for the various tablets on the market are going to look very similar. The issue is whether you have a case if someone makes something close to it. In the case of the Galaxy S vs the iPhone 3G/3GS I thought Apple had a case. Expanding it to the iPad vs the Tab though, I thought they were reaching too far and weakening their case overall - but by that time the case was about older phones (from both sides) and Apple saw a chance to include more current product lines.
Have you even looked at the patent in question? Here it is in all its rounded corner glory. They patented rounded freaking corners. If you want to get specific, 4 rounded corners on a rectangle. Like the world has never seen that before.
Yes, that's the point of a design patent. It doesn't have to be something new, just a design specific to your product - the iPhone happens to be a rounded rectangle with a dock connector on one edge. That's what's laid out in the design patent.
It's not a method patent, as you seem to be wailing and gnashing about. Of course "the world has seen that before" - the purpose of a design patent is not to mark out totally new, never seen before things; that's what method patents are for.
Apple didn't "patent rounded freaking corners", they submitted a design patent for their product in much the same way that thousands and thousands of other design patents are submitted, like that of the Ford Mustang. Zomg! Ford patented a transportation device with four wheels and an engine! Like the world has never seen that before!
OK. But then they took their design patent and tried to claim that anyone else who use a rectangle with rounded corners violated their patent. So, it is like if Ford had a design patent on their model of car and then tried to sue people for shamelessly copying their innovative 4-wheel design.
No, they didn't. They sued Samsung for that, not "anyone else who used a rectangle with rounded corners".
Whether they were right to do that or not, there are plenty of other rounded rectangle tablets and phones that are not the subject of design patent lawsuits.
Which of these (http://ideas.mgstrategy.com/uploads/lg-samsung-iphone2.gif) designs is copied from which (if any)? The two on the left are LG's, the third one is an Apple and the right-most is by Samsung.
They all share common design elements but are distinct from each other - that's the point of the design patent in the first place. It enables companies to make the four products seen there and yet still protect themselves from someone making a clear knock off. The crux of the argument has been just how "generic" Apple's design patent is - it doesn't even have the home button in the filing. The design patents of all four of those devices will look very similar, in the same way that many cars look similar but not identical. The line between flattery and imitation is blurry though, especially with these minimalist designs.
Apple had a case against the original Galaxy S2 I believe, but the scope of the suit to include the tab was starting to stretch it (literally, remember the photo?) somewhat - I don't believe the Tab and the iPad are really all that similar to infringe on each other's design patents. However, saying that, Apple's design patent is very generic - ideally it should be much more specific to the iPad itself that it is meant to be protecting, like the addition of the home button and the lock switch etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if the hardware you own only allows you to buy things in the Disney store (under the penalty of the DMCA).
Good thing that's not applicable to iOS devices then. You are not restricted to iBooks/iTunes store for ebook purchases on iOS.
Probably not; those are very specific criteria for evil.
I am pretty certain those were examples. You can dismiss any example (used to establish a pattern) by claiming that particular example is used as too odd a criterion. Of course, when you do that, you can't claim objectivity.
I also wasn't aware that Apple personally employed the police department responsible for investigating a criminal act involving Gizmodo and the purchase of stolen property. Good to know. How are they managing to keep it funded and yet still remain enormously profitable?
Even you yourself don't believe this argument.
No, I clearly don't because it's not an argument; it's hyperbole in response to the GP's hyperbole that Apple are "evil" for "kicking down the door of a journalist". Unless Apple are direct employers of the police department that went to investigate that offence then Apple did no such thing. It reported the theft/loss of property like any other company and the police in the appropriate jurisdiction carried out their job and investigated the crime. It was pretty easy for them, given that Gizmodo didn't exactly hide what they'd done.
Either way Apple didn't "kick down the door of a journalist", so claiming they are evil because of doing so is a total non-starter.
The N9 doesn't use Android, so your proposed 'fix' will not work. Idiot.
Like a man in orthopeadic shoes, I stand corrected. You're right, I'm a damn idiot.
Gotta earn that pay, right bonch?
Yawn. Try a new trolling method kid. Not bonch, never been bonch, never been paid to post on slashdot. You also forgot to log in. Maybe you left your slashdot password with all that evidence you also forgot to present.
a city in Rome?
Yes, The Vatican.
Apple's profits have wilted? In what universe?
Either way, thermonuclear destruction "at all costs" (according to Steve's original vent) doesn't require that you're profitable, just that the other guy is gone.
Apple didn't hit the expectations that the analysts were guessing at in this quarter, but that doesn't mean they're wilting - sales are up, and strong in all segments except for the much-aged iPod. Their PC business is growing in a stagnant industry overall (and their new retina MBP still has a two week waiting list), they are selling iPhones and iPads almost as fast as they can make them.
I'm not sure what definition of "wilting" you're using?
..is the iPad 3.
SAY IT! I WANT TO HEAR YOU SAY IT!
No more of this "the new" crap.
Officially it is "iPad (3rd Generation)" in technical specs, but for marketing reasons it's The New iPad until they release a newer one.
iOS6 on a 2G or 3G?!
Goodness, what are you smoking? It would be unusable! Although, if they were going for the Android user experience maybe it's a great idea!
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKE (not even a very good one).
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. iOS6 won't run "just fine" on the original iPhone, or even the 3G. The earliest phone it supports is the 3GS, and even then it's going to be missing one or two of the more resource-hungry features.
Did Google kick in the door of a journalist yet? Did Google "suicide" a factory worker who lost a phone prototype? Did Google try to strongarm an environmental organization? Did Larry park in the disabled spot?
Probably not; those are very specific criteria for evil.
Did Apple deliberately go against user settings to set third party advertising and tracking cookies on computers by exploiting a browser bug?
And you're seriously blaming Apple for the alleged murder of a third party factory employee (I assume that's what you're implying - that Apple paid to have a worker killed, or had someone in-house go and do it) due to a lost prototype? What reality do you live in?
I also wasn't aware that Apple personally employed the police department responsible for investigating a criminal act involving Gizmodo and the purchase of stolen property. Good to know. How are they managing to keep it funded and yet still remain enormously profitable?
Wait, are you saying that Gizmodo's door *shouldn't* have been "kicked in" (in reality, they knocked) to investigate a crime? In your world it's fine for the police to ignore the report of a crime and very public evidence posted by the suspects themselves? Not sure how this is "evil"? Maybe you can fill me in?
And parking in a disabled spot when it's not needed is very annoying. It's as bad as people who park on double yellows or in a fire lane.
Google was able to provide turn-by-turn directions for years (and did for Android). Rumor has it that Apple wouldn't let them release it for iOS even though Google offered to do it for free. Speculation at the time was that Apple didn't want maps to be too good so that when Apple released its own maps later it'd seem like an upgrade. That seems to be exactly how it played out.
Cool story bro.
How did this get +2 interesting?
It's well known via many publicly accessible sources that Google's terms didn't allow turn-by-turn on iOS (or any other third party app service) without prior consent of Google.
By "rumour has it" you really mean "my predetermined bias towards Google and against Apple means that I'll just make a wild assed guess that paints Google as a the good guy" right?
In reality, Apple negotiated for the right to include turn-by-turn, but they couldn't agree to Google's terms. At no point ever was Google offering it "for free". You also don't seem to understand that the Google maps app on iOS is actually written by Apple. Why would Apple "[not] allow them to release it" on iOS when Apple themselves write the app and just licence access to the maps API from Google?
It's off by default on my Nokia N9. Also, it only works over really sort distances, like centimetres.
So?
The article itself mentions the N9 as a tested phone where this works, despite the NFC being off by default.
Solution: fix bugs in Android (mostly done for these exploits in ICS and JB).
Galaxy Nexus outputs HD video over the USB connector using MHL. Either get a dongle that converts MHL to HDMI or use a receiving device that has MHL built in. There you go.
Nice. Connection agnostic standard, so I assume the phone reassigns the pins as necessary depending on the device on the other end of the cable. That's cool.
...and clearly it all converts to USB.
No, it doesn't. When the USB cable is plugged in (the one that comes with the phone and has a USB port on one end and the 30 pin port on the other) only the USB data pins and the USB power pins - 4 out of the total 30 are connected.
Actually, the ground pin is probably also connected to the shielding. Five pins.
The other pins connect when other things are connected, like a docking port on a music system will have the power pins, the accessory control and the line out pins connected. The HDMI adapter will connect to other pins, the video adapter will connect to the line out pins and the video pins.
The USB cable with the standard USB port on the end *absolutely does not* convert all those things down so that they work over USB. It connects the two data pins and the 5V power only.
Or you'll just use the adapter that the same sources are reporting is also in production alongside the new port.
Just like the Magsafe 2 > Magsafe adapter for $10 that launched alongside the new Magsafe port on the retina Macbook Pro and the new Air.
It's not about "increasing revenues", it's about the first thing you said - "better design etc" since they can get rid of several pins that they don't use any more (like firewire data and power, among others).
Not everything is an evil conspiracy to fleece people.
I'm sorry, Gizmodo loving Apple?! What world do you live in?
Or has the whole "Apple are snubbing us because we didn't get free press passes to WWDC after we tried to ransom their stolen iPhone prototype" thing been swept under the rug?
Why is it "not needed"?
The current connector is 10 years old and contains several useless pins - like the firewire data and power connectors. With a change in the connector (and adding an adapter for the 30 pin ports and cables) they can add new things like USB3 that customers might actually want, instead of being stuck with a port that supports a data protocol that no iOS device has supported in years.
Other manufacturers do it over USB. Fuck off.
[citation needed]
Show me a phone that outputs HDMI video, stereo line level audio, composite video, or any individual one of those over the micro USB port.
Why would they? The iPod/iPhone/iPad power adapter has a standard USB port on it. Why buy a new power adapter when you can just get a new cable with the (alleged) new 19 pin port on it? Alternatively just use an adapter - the same sources talking about the new 19 pin connection have also "confirmed" an adapter.
There's no reason to think that the new 19 pin port cable will be any different to the current 30 pin cable - for basic charging and syncing, Apple supplies a power supply with a USB port on it and a cable that can connect to it or your computer's USB port. All that's changing is the proprietary end.
The current 30 pin has all sorts along with USB - composite video, stereo line out, firewire data and power (now unused), ipod accessory control, etc. It's much more than just a micro USB port, but it is overkill now that there's no need for the firewire pins, for example.
The same sources that have said there will be a new port have also said that an adapter is also in the works.
With all the outspoken Apple fanboys touting how great IOS and OSX are, being Apple apologists for Apple's patent trolling, and mocking Android and linux, how should I react to this situation? How about this: HAHA IN YOUR FACE!
Yeah, IN YOUR FACE Apple because developers were lazy and didn't verify receipts! It's totally Apple's fault that developers didn't use the provided security tools!
Given that we're being so charitable, it's totally Linux's fault if you turn on SSH and set your root password as "password", right? Just checking.
The NMR machine I use daily is 10 Tesla, and that's the baby one.
We can do much better than 10T sustained.
Your completely unable to copy and paste? Guess the *tards are out in force tonight.
*you're.
Ah, irony. Not just a method of getting creases out of clothes.
But that's the reason it's a design patent - it can be very similar to something else, or even reference previously released products within the patent. The issue, as you say, is how generic the filing that Apple made was. It doesn't mean that design patents for something that has to take that shape are invalid - all of the design patents for the various tablets on the market are going to look very similar. The issue is whether you have a case if someone makes something close to it. In the case of the Galaxy S vs the iPhone 3G/3GS I thought Apple had a case. Expanding it to the iPad vs the Tab though, I thought they were reaching too far and weakening their case overall - but by that time the case was about older phones (from both sides) and Apple saw a chance to include more current product lines.
Have you even looked at the patent in question? Here it is in all its rounded corner glory. They patented rounded freaking corners. If you want to get specific, 4 rounded corners on a rectangle. Like the world has never seen that before.
Yes, that's the point of a design patent. It doesn't have to be something new, just a design specific to your product - the iPhone happens to be a rounded rectangle with a dock connector on one edge. That's what's laid out in the design patent.
It's not a method patent, as you seem to be wailing and gnashing about. Of course "the world has seen that before" - the purpose of a design patent is not to mark out totally new, never seen before things; that's what method patents are for.
Apple didn't "patent rounded freaking corners", they submitted a design patent for their product in much the same way that thousands and thousands of other design patents are submitted, like that of the Ford Mustang. Zomg! Ford patented a transportation device with four wheels and an engine! Like the world has never seen that before!
OK. But then they took their design patent and tried to claim that anyone else who use a rectangle with rounded corners violated their patent. So, it is like if Ford had a design patent on their model of car and then tried to sue people for shamelessly copying their innovative 4-wheel design.
No, they didn't. They sued Samsung for that, not "anyone else who used a rectangle with rounded corners".
Whether they were right to do that or not, there are plenty of other rounded rectangle tablets and phones that are not the subject of design patent lawsuits.
Which of these (http://ideas.mgstrategy.com/uploads/lg-samsung-iphone2.gif) designs is copied from which (if any)?
The two on the left are LG's, the third one is an Apple and the right-most is by Samsung.
They all share common design elements but are distinct from each other - that's the point of the design patent in the first place. It enables companies to make the four products seen there and yet still protect themselves from someone making a clear knock off. The crux of the argument has been just how "generic" Apple's design patent is - it doesn't even have the home button in the filing. The design patents of all four of those devices will look very similar, in the same way that many cars look similar but not identical. The line between flattery and imitation is blurry though, especially with these minimalist designs.
Apple had a case against the original Galaxy S2 I believe, but the scope of the suit to include the tab was starting to stretch it (literally, remember the photo?) somewhat - I don't believe the Tab and the iPad are really all that similar to infringe on each other's design patents. However, saying that, Apple's design patent is very generic - ideally it should be much more specific to the iPad itself that it is meant to be protecting, like the addition of the home button and the lock switch etc.