"Wiping the floor" is a bit of a bold statement - while the Transformer (which is very nice) is $100 cheaper than an iPad, it's hardly wiping the floor - it's not even making a dent, and will now be playing catchup to the new one.
Asus certainly had the right idea - everyone else with their more expensive-than-iPad tablets were never going to get anywhere, but even with a $100 price difference, they're not setting the world on fire.
Look at the screen on an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4/4S and you'll see why - at that very high ppi, it's virtually impossible to distinguish the individual pixels by eye and you end up with a screen that can display text as if it's printed on paper.
It really does look outstanding. It really shines when reading text especially.
You can "not find it credible" due to your gut feeling if you like, but filing false accounts over something as trivial as "hiding" the supposed mega profit made from the online store? I mean, really - what's their angle? For the enormous risk of being caught (it only takes one whistle blower or a severe audit), there doesn't seem to be any actual benefit to them lying about it, regardless of their positions on other subjects. It simply does not make sense, and "but they're eeeeeeeeevil" is not evidence, but I can see your frothing Apple hate prevents you from considering anything except the baseless conspiracy theory. Shame.
I'm sure they could, but that would be illegal, and the risk of getting caught would be high.
I'm also not sure they're worried about masking short term weaknesses in hardware sales given that they're one of the few PC manufacturers who have had positive growth year-on-year for the past 5 to 6 years, and their recent release of the "disappointing" iPhone 4S has been one of their biggest quarters ever (while the 3GS and 4 still continue to sell very well).
Honestly, as a conspiracy theory it's too outlandish. It's far more likely that the Occam's Razor solution is the likely one - that they really do run it at just-about break even.
One thing that is evident though is that it's certainly been extremely good for third party developers on iOS. The jury is still out on the OS X App Store.
Payment processing and transaction fees are free from credit card processors like visa, mastercard etc?!
Cool! I'll just stop paying those then! I didn't realise they were free!
Also, I know for a fact that bandwidth and sever hardware/data centre maintenance costs the same as the "electrical power" to run them. The servers, rack space, building, cooling, data lines, bandwidth, maintenance etc is all rolled into the cost of the electricity! Why wouldn't it be?!
If you think Apple is filing fraudulent financial statements that is an extremely serious allegation, and if you believe it is true then you should contact the SEC immediately.
Let's put it another way - for the risks of being caught (given the financial and criminal penalties as well as the PR issue) filing fraudulent accounts, what benefit do they really get by claiming that the store is running near break even for them? It's already abundantly clear that the vast majority of their profit is in hardware sales - there's no real reason to lie about what it costs to run the app store given that the penalty for lying about it and being caught is a lot more than just some neckbeards on slashdot claiming that *this* is the straw that breaks the camel's back and will be the reason that they continue to never buy Apple products.
You could also ask Google what it costs to run their marketplace, since they take 30% too, for the same features as Apple's store - payment processing, bandwidth, hosting, store front, etc, or is it not book cooking when Google is doing it? If it really is significantly less, then why does Google not charge a much smaller percentage? Surely that would be great PR for them? Or do you think they have warm and fuzzy business feelings towards Apple and are colluding with them to secretly make massive profit on their stores but really tell everyone they are break even?
I'm not sure what Apple's angle is for lying here? It's not like they hide their financials in their annual statements.
Because... that's what people want from the platform?
It is possible for them to have more than one way to meet the needs of their customers. Just because they have iOS doesn't mean everything is going to replicate it exactly.
Consider the way they have introduced this feature - by default the option is app store and any other identified developer (digital signing is free to get from Apple), and a one-time conformation for "unknown" apps, but there are two other options to choose from - one of which is to disable the feature entirely. They "care" enough to know that power users (and occasionally their other customers) need more than the App Store can provide.
Also, you forgot to log in. If you hang around enough to "be really sick of me jerking off on every Apple story" then you really should remember to log in. It's really easy. Also, if this discussion and others I've had on here count as jerking off then you have my deepest sympathies over your own sex life. It must really be tragic.
Yes, but the article is about the individual chips that make up the device. Those multi-TB devices are made of many combined elements. The research is about those elements.
You don't need to pay Apple $99 per year to get digitally signed - the whole point is to provide developer ID for apps installed *outside* the App Store ecosystem.
So, for example, Adobe would get digitally signed so that the Creative Suite would be in the whitelist by default (although I'm aware they also pay the absolutely gigantic and extortionate, unaffordable $99 fee to develop in the App Store too, since they sell Photoshop Elements that way).
Apple have also stated that the certificates are available for any developer than wants one - there's no vetting process, but once you have one, it can be revoked if your apps are obviously malware (or your cert is compromised).
And speaking about non-admin users - how is that really different to now? non-admin users can't run installers either (although they can drag apps that don't use one into their home folder). If you don't have admin access on the machine, it's being maintained by someone else who can manage your software for you.
It is the default setting already, not "in the future" (ie, it is the default in the new dev preview of 10.8).
All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval. It's essentially UAC as seen in Windows XP, except it remembers your choices and holds a whitelist that has App Store apps in it, plus any apps that you choose to add to it.
If you don't want it to ask at all (ie, the current state of affairs on 10.7) then you can turn the feature off.
The three choices are:
* App Store Only (ask about all other apps on first run) * App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8 * Allow from anywhere (feature turned off)
Right, and in the absence of options a and b, then we can start being all chicken little and talk about being squashed by a cloud, but in the meantime a security feature is being spun out into a Machiavellian lock down scenario.
This is what people have been saying Apple should do since the release of iOS (I know this is OS X, but coming from the other direction) - curated system for those who want it, with an option to move out "into the wild" for those who know what they're doing. The non-App Store install really isn't going to go anywhere.
Look at Apple's financial statements (and if you think they are lying, tell the SEC) - the App Store makes a profit for Apple but it a very small one in comparison with the hardware sales that are the reason the store exists for in the first place.
Apple has repeated stated year, on year, that the App Store is not much better than break even for them as a standalone product - the real money makers on the store are the third party developers.
Yes, much is made of the "massive" 30% cut they take for handling payment processing, store front, advertising, servers, bandwidth etc that go into running the store.
Yes, they pay all of those running costs and "the rest is profit" - and it *is* running in profit, just a very tiny profit compared to the hardware. They're not running the store to make money directly - they run it at near break even so that they can make money selling iOS devices.
The store prints money for third party developers - Apple stated something like $2.5 billion paid out to developers at the last big keynote I saw (Steve was alive at the time, since he was the one who said it), and it's going to be even more now.
It's not printing money for Apple though, not directly at any rate.
iOS prints money for them because they sell the hardware - the software side of things lives and dies on third party developer support, which is why they've introduced the App Store to OS X. However, the App Store doesn't really make any money for Apple directly (other than their own apps, but they sold those beforehand), just in the same way that the App Store on iOS is a very small source of profit for them (nearly lost in the noise).
There's no reason for them to change the way OS X works and force an App Store only model, merely offer it alongside what already exists. They're smart enough to realise that not everyone is going to want to use it (or be able to use it) and they're not going to cut off that feature on the Mac - remember, they make the bulk of their money on the hardware sales, so any reason *not* to buy a Mac is just a threat to their bottom line. They know apps like the Creative Suite and other heavy hitters that are expensive or so things outside of the app store guidelines are not going to go away (as well as all the open source and freeware stuff that's part of the BSD side of things).
All they're doing is adding another step to the process in almost exactly the manner people on slashdot have been suggesting ("have the app store, but they should have a way for power users who know what they're doing to be able to work outside of it with a setting or password etc") and suddenly this is evidence of them locking everything down?
It's a security feature (although whether it will become like UAC on Windows and simply clicked through without reading is another matter), not a prelude to removing the ability to install non App Store apps.
To be honest, it's just a potential refinement of what they've done before with some tighter integration, but I suppose if you haven't been out of your mom's basement you won't have seen anything like it before and think it's new and groundbreaking.
Be careful of the sun, it burns tender, pale flesh.
So news on new Linux releases or Firefox releases (where are they, every half an hour now?) is fine, but news on 10.8 isn't?
What else do you expect on a site supposedly dedicated to technology news? A major OS is releasing a new version, but that's not important, I suppose. More room for some rampant Apple trolling though, or news about how a government department is switching Linux distros.
Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing.... well, based on stories on here, they'll still be criticised for locking down. Might as well give it a shot eh?
How does this proposed feature indicate that apps must come from the App Store in the future? Sure, you can extrapolate from your two data points, but that doesn't mean Apple will go all the way to "App Store Only" in the same way that extrapolating from "not married on Sunday, married on Monday, married twice on Tuesday" really doesn't work.
There's not enough evidence to suggest that's the plan at all.
Apple didn't "invent" iTunes either - they bought the software from another company and renamed it iTunes.
I didn't make any claims that Apple invented those things - it's all very well documented in the history of the company.
This goes back to what it is that Apple does with innovations and inventions. The mouse is one of the most obvious things - no one at Xerox knew what do do with it really, and they saw no commercial application for it. Steve Jobs saw the potential immediately, and the rest is history. Apple has a very long line of doing things like that - looking at what other people have done and seeing forward trends, or just doing it themselves in house.
They don't need to "invent" everything - and they really don't - but people focus on that fact alone and ignore the supposedly "easy" thing Apple does, which is product design and development. It's all very well having the best invention in the world if you have no idea what to do with it. Apple is extremely good at turning inventions (their own and other's) into successful products.
In the process of doing that they often licence the technology, or simply buy potentially useful things, or use Open Source. Their biggest successes are the mouse (licenced), iTunes (bought from someone else and refined), OS X (based on Open Source core), the iPhone (developed in house) and the original coloured iMac (again, developed in house from a non-original idea, just refined). Things like the iPod, for example, which was not a new invention (mp3 players had been around before, as had the concept of a portable music player) but it's a big leap from the situation pre-iPod to the one afterwards, despite Apple not actually "inventing" anything new, but doing something just as important - designing the product.
Invention is just one part of the step to a successful product, and as a product designer you don't necessarily have to be the one doing the inventing. Do you think Ford invented the internal combustion engine? Or the wheel?
Now, this doesn't mean things like "slide to unlock" should be patentable, but Apple can be expected to protect what it has made, or licenced to use if it was exclusive.
Because an SDK is often much more than just the API (although it doesn't have to be), and may include multiple different APIs in a widget (that then may also have other non-open APIs, for example, iOS). The descriptor for an open API vs a private one is perfectly apt. SDK and API are not necessarily interchangeable words, although they are clearly strongly related.
The openwashing term is arrogant because it seeks to claim ownership of the word, or rather, who may use it. For example, the folks on here would have no problem calling it an Open API when it was part of an Open Source project, but somehow the identical thing in a project that features closed portions (or is entirely closed other than the API) is somehow "openwashing" and suddenly not a valid descriptor? All of the supposed reasons (dependent on the owner of the API if they make changes, dependency on other features that may rely on it etc) apply to both open source and proprietary software, with the only difference being that you could fork a project if you really didn't like the change - but then you have all the extra work to handle that the API is meant to reduce. That does not make the Open API any less open - that part is all about the openness of the project it is bolted to, which is also a key consideration, but doesn't change the accuracy of the term Open API when it refers to something that is part of a closed project.
The term applies to the API itself, not the software as a whole, and claiming that only open source projects can use the term is deliberately misrepresenting what it means because you (the general you, not you specifically) dislike the company or project using the phrase.
I did not claim that, and I think you know that (if you really didn't then, goodness, my deepest sympathies). My specific claim is that the term "openwashing" is an arrogant claim on a term used in a derogatory fashion when certain groups who are despised by slashdot use the term in a dictionary-supported manner to describe something. The claim is that the term open has not been correctly applied and is only there to try to add some PR fluff. That's quite clearly not true, but it does tend to get positive mods on slashdot.
The dictionary definition of open certainly fits.
The difference, of course, with a group of people who are writing a dictionary is that they don't have an agenda where any hint of the word "open" is used around proprietary software, or by companies who make a popular smartphone, or a social network, or a desktop OS is somehow obviously wrong and conspiratorial. (That's not to say linguists don't also have prejudices, but that's a whole other can of worms and will start to get us into syntax, spelling, grammar and slang).
Really, this is not difficult stuff to understand. It just makes you look a little foolish to pretend otherwise.
Yes, words do have meaning, and the term "open" is not solely the domain of open source software, although that is certainly one of several possible uses.
Most people here clearly understand that, but some people will try to troll as much as possible to muddy the water and claim sole ownership of the word, and that any other use (especially by groups they despise) is some Machiavellian conspiracy rather than the simple use of an adjective that accurately describes the noun it is attached to.
That's an enormous non-sequitur - a single implementation can certainly be open. Just because it's singular does not make it "not open" - that's that attempt to define the term "open" again.
Open does not mean standard, although a standard can be open (or closed), just as an open interface does not necessarily need to be a standard (like GSM or power sockets or RJ45 plugs etc, although it needs to be standardised in that it is relatively unchanging within itself).
Well, in this case it's a countersuit against Kodak. They were not the aggressor here. Kodak wanted a quick settlement to raise some cash to avoid going bust.
There's also the matter of the Quicktake camera - designed by Apple, built by Kodak, then mysteriously coincidentally Kodak files patents on the technology in it. How curious! The suit is over ownership of those patents.
Yes, especially if that weaker prey sues the lion in an attempt to force a quick settlement to stave off bankruptcy. Now Kodak has rocked the boat and dragged up the QuickTake again, Apple is countersuing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Wiping the floor" is a bit of a bold statement - while the Transformer (which is very nice) is $100 cheaper than an iPad, it's hardly wiping the floor - it's not even making a dent, and will now be playing catchup to the new one.
Asus certainly had the right idea - everyone else with their more expensive-than-iPad tablets were never going to get anywhere, but even with a $100 price difference, they're not setting the world on fire.
Look at the screen on an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4/4S and you'll see why - at that very high ppi, it's virtually impossible to distinguish the individual pixels by eye and you end up with a screen that can display text as if it's printed on paper.
It really does look outstanding. It really shines when reading text especially.
Then report them for it - it's a crime.
You can "not find it credible" due to your gut feeling if you like, but filing false accounts over something as trivial as "hiding" the supposed mega profit made from the online store? I mean, really - what's their angle? For the enormous risk of being caught (it only takes one whistle blower or a severe audit), there doesn't seem to be any actual benefit to them lying about it, regardless of their positions on other subjects. It simply does not make sense, and "but they're eeeeeeeeevil" is not evidence, but I can see your frothing Apple hate prevents you from considering anything except the baseless conspiracy theory. Shame.
I'm sure they could, but that would be illegal, and the risk of getting caught would be high.
I'm also not sure they're worried about masking short term weaknesses in hardware sales given that they're one of the few PC manufacturers who have had positive growth year-on-year for the past 5 to 6 years, and their recent release of the "disappointing" iPhone 4S has been one of their biggest quarters ever (while the 3GS and 4 still continue to sell very well).
Honestly, as a conspiracy theory it's too outlandish. It's far more likely that the Occam's Razor solution is the likely one - that they really do run it at just-about break even.
One thing that is evident though is that it's certainly been extremely good for third party developers on iOS. The jury is still out on the OS X App Store.
Payment processing and transaction fees are free from credit card processors like visa, mastercard etc?!
Cool! I'll just stop paying those then! I didn't realise they were free!
Also, I know for a fact that bandwidth and sever hardware/data centre maintenance costs the same as the "electrical power" to run them. The servers, rack space, building, cooling, data lines, bandwidth, maintenance etc is all rolled into the cost of the electricity! Why wouldn't it be?!
If you think Apple is filing fraudulent financial statements that is an extremely serious allegation, and if you believe it is true then you should contact the SEC immediately.
Let's put it another way - for the risks of being caught (given the financial and criminal penalties as well as the PR issue) filing fraudulent accounts, what benefit do they really get by claiming that the store is running near break even for them? It's already abundantly clear that the vast majority of their profit is in hardware sales - there's no real reason to lie about what it costs to run the app store given that the penalty for lying about it and being caught is a lot more than just some neckbeards on slashdot claiming that *this* is the straw that breaks the camel's back and will be the reason that they continue to never buy Apple products.
You could also ask Google what it costs to run their marketplace, since they take 30% too, for the same features as Apple's store - payment processing, bandwidth, hosting, store front, etc, or is it not book cooking when Google is doing it? If it really is significantly less, then why does Google not charge a much smaller percentage? Surely that would be great PR for them? Or do you think they have warm and fuzzy business feelings towards Apple and are colluding with them to secretly make massive profit on their stores but really tell everyone they are break even?
I'm not sure what Apple's angle is for lying here? It's not like they hide their financials in their annual statements.
Because... that's what people want from the platform?
It is possible for them to have more than one way to meet the needs of their customers. Just because they have iOS doesn't mean everything is going to replicate it exactly.
Consider the way they have introduced this feature - by default the option is app store and any other identified developer (digital signing is free to get from Apple), and a one-time conformation for "unknown" apps, but there are two other options to choose from - one of which is to disable the feature entirely. They "care" enough to know that power users (and occasionally their other customers) need more than the App Store can provide.
Also, you forgot to log in. If you hang around enough to "be really sick of me jerking off on every Apple story" then you really should remember to log in. It's really easy. Also, if this discussion and others I've had on here count as jerking off then you have my deepest sympathies over your own sex life. It must really be tragic.
Yes, but the article is about the individual chips that make up the device. Those multi-TB devices are made of many combined elements. The research is about those elements.
You don't need to pay Apple $99 per year to get digitally signed - the whole point is to provide developer ID for apps installed *outside* the App Store ecosystem.
So, for example, Adobe would get digitally signed so that the Creative Suite would be in the whitelist by default (although I'm aware they also pay the absolutely gigantic and extortionate, unaffordable $99 fee to develop in the App Store too, since they sell Photoshop Elements that way).
Apple have also stated that the certificates are available for any developer than wants one - there's no vetting process, but once you have one, it can be revoked if your apps are obviously malware (or your cert is compromised).
And speaking about non-admin users - how is that really different to now? non-admin users can't run installers either (although they can drag apps that don't use one into their home folder). If you don't have admin access on the machine, it's being maintained by someone else who can manage your software for you.
It is the default setting already, not "in the future" (ie, it is the default in the new dev preview of 10.8).
All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval. It's essentially UAC as seen in Windows XP, except it remembers your choices and holds a whitelist that has App Store apps in it, plus any apps that you choose to add to it.
If you don't want it to ask at all (ie, the current state of affairs on 10.7) then you can turn the feature off.
The three choices are:
* App Store Only (ask about all other apps on first run)
* App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8
* Allow from anywhere (feature turned off)
To quote your own post...
whooooooooooooosh
(you missed the sarcasm, also the "log in" button)
Right, and in the absence of options a and b, then we can start being all chicken little and talk about being squashed by a cloud, but in the meantime a security feature is being spun out into a Machiavellian lock down scenario.
This is what people have been saying Apple should do since the release of iOS (I know this is OS X, but coming from the other direction) - curated system for those who want it, with an option to move out "into the wild" for those who know what they're doing. The non-App Store install really isn't going to go anywhere.
Look at Apple's financial statements (and if you think they are lying, tell the SEC) - the App Store makes a profit for Apple but it a very small one in comparison with the hardware sales that are the reason the store exists for in the first place.
Apple has repeated stated year, on year, that the App Store is not much better than break even for them as a standalone product - the real money makers on the store are the third party developers.
Yes, much is made of the "massive" 30% cut they take for handling payment processing, store front, advertising, servers, bandwidth etc that go into running the store.
Yes, they pay all of those running costs and "the rest is profit" - and it *is* running in profit, just a very tiny profit compared to the hardware. They're not running the store to make money directly - they run it at near break even so that they can make money selling iOS devices.
The store prints money for third party developers - Apple stated something like $2.5 billion paid out to developers at the last big keynote I saw (Steve was alive at the time, since he was the one who said it), and it's going to be even more now.
It's not printing money for Apple though, not directly at any rate.
iOS prints money for them because they sell the hardware - the software side of things lives and dies on third party developer support, which is why they've introduced the App Store to OS X. However, the App Store doesn't really make any money for Apple directly (other than their own apps, but they sold those beforehand), just in the same way that the App Store on iOS is a very small source of profit for them (nearly lost in the noise).
There's no reason for them to change the way OS X works and force an App Store only model, merely offer it alongside what already exists. They're smart enough to realise that not everyone is going to want to use it (or be able to use it) and they're not going to cut off that feature on the Mac - remember, they make the bulk of their money on the hardware sales, so any reason *not* to buy a Mac is just a threat to their bottom line. They know apps like the Creative Suite and other heavy hitters that are expensive or so things outside of the app store guidelines are not going to go away (as well as all the open source and freeware stuff that's part of the BSD side of things).
All they're doing is adding another step to the process in almost exactly the manner people on slashdot have been suggesting ("have the app store, but they should have a way for power users who know what they're doing to be able to work outside of it with a setting or password etc") and suddenly this is evidence of them locking everything down?
It's a security feature (although whether it will become like UAC on Windows and simply clicked through without reading is another matter), not a prelude to removing the ability to install non App Store apps.
Really, you think so?
To be honest, it's just a potential refinement of what they've done before with some tighter integration, but I suppose if you haven't been out of your mom's basement you won't have seen anything like it before and think it's new and groundbreaking.
Be careful of the sun, it burns tender, pale flesh.
So news on new Linux releases or Firefox releases (where are they, every half an hour now?) is fine, but news on 10.8 isn't?
What else do you expect on a site supposedly dedicated to technology news? A major OS is releasing a new version, but that's not important, I suppose. More room for some rampant Apple trolling though, or news about how a government department is switching Linux distros.
What does getting the creases out of my clothes have to do with this?
Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing.... well, based on stories on here, they'll still be criticised for locking down. Might as well give it a shot eh?
How does this proposed feature indicate that apps must come from the App Store in the future? Sure, you can extrapolate from your two data points, but that doesn't mean Apple will go all the way to "App Store Only" in the same way that extrapolating from "not married on Sunday, married on Monday, married twice on Tuesday" really doesn't work.
There's not enough evidence to suggest that's the plan at all.
Apple didn't "invent" iTunes either - they bought the software from another company and renamed it iTunes.
I didn't make any claims that Apple invented those things - it's all very well documented in the history of the company.
This goes back to what it is that Apple does with innovations and inventions. The mouse is one of the most obvious things - no one at Xerox knew what do do with it really, and they saw no commercial application for it. Steve Jobs saw the potential immediately, and the rest is history. Apple has a very long line of doing things like that - looking at what other people have done and seeing forward trends, or just doing it themselves in house.
They don't need to "invent" everything - and they really don't - but people focus on that fact alone and ignore the supposedly "easy" thing Apple does, which is product design and development. It's all very well having the best invention in the world if you have no idea what to do with it. Apple is extremely good at turning inventions (their own and other's) into successful products.
In the process of doing that they often licence the technology, or simply buy potentially useful things, or use Open Source. Their biggest successes are the mouse (licenced), iTunes (bought from someone else and refined), OS X (based on Open Source core), the iPhone (developed in house) and the original coloured iMac (again, developed in house from a non-original idea, just refined). Things like the iPod, for example, which was not a new invention (mp3 players had been around before, as had the concept of a portable music player) but it's a big leap from the situation pre-iPod to the one afterwards, despite Apple not actually "inventing" anything new, but doing something just as important - designing the product.
Invention is just one part of the step to a successful product, and as a product designer you don't necessarily have to be the one doing the inventing. Do you think Ford invented the internal combustion engine? Or the wheel?
Now, this doesn't mean things like "slide to unlock" should be patentable, but Apple can be expected to protect what it has made, or licenced to use if it was exclusive.
Because an SDK is often much more than just the API (although it doesn't have to be), and may include multiple different APIs in a widget (that then may also have other non-open APIs, for example, iOS). The descriptor for an open API vs a private one is perfectly apt. SDK and API are not necessarily interchangeable words, although they are clearly strongly related.
The openwashing term is arrogant because it seeks to claim ownership of the word, or rather, who may use it. For example, the folks on here would have no problem calling it an Open API when it was part of an Open Source project, but somehow the identical thing in a project that features closed portions (or is entirely closed other than the API) is somehow "openwashing" and suddenly not a valid descriptor? All of the supposed reasons (dependent on the owner of the API if they make changes, dependency on other features that may rely on it etc) apply to both open source and proprietary software, with the only difference being that you could fork a project if you really didn't like the change - but then you have all the extra work to handle that the API is meant to reduce. That does not make the Open API any less open - that part is all about the openness of the project it is bolted to, which is also a key consideration, but doesn't change the accuracy of the term Open API when it refers to something that is part of a closed project.
The term applies to the API itself, not the software as a whole, and claiming that only open source projects can use the term is deliberately misrepresenting what it means because you (the general you, not you specifically) dislike the company or project using the phrase.
Where did I say that the Newton was a smartphone? It was a precursor to the PDA/tablet, not a phone.
Nice non sequitur.
I did not claim that, and I think you know that (if you really didn't then, goodness, my deepest sympathies). My specific claim is that the term "openwashing" is an arrogant claim on a term used in a derogatory fashion when certain groups who are despised by slashdot use the term in a dictionary-supported manner to describe something. The claim is that the term open has not been correctly applied and is only there to try to add some PR fluff. That's quite clearly not true, but it does tend to get positive mods on slashdot.
The dictionary definition of open certainly fits.
The difference, of course, with a group of people who are writing a dictionary is that they don't have an agenda where any hint of the word "open" is used around proprietary software, or by companies who make a popular smartphone, or a social network, or a desktop OS is somehow obviously wrong and conspiratorial. (That's not to say linguists don't also have prejudices, but that's a whole other can of worms and will start to get us into syntax, spelling, grammar and slang).
Really, this is not difficult stuff to understand. It just makes you look a little foolish to pretend otherwise.
Yes, words do have meaning, and the term "open" is not solely the domain of open source software, although that is certainly one of several possible uses.
Most people here clearly understand that, but some people will try to troll as much as possible to muddy the water and claim sole ownership of the word, and that any other use (especially by groups they despise) is some Machiavellian conspiracy rather than the simple use of an adjective that accurately describes the noun it is attached to.
That's an enormous non-sequitur - a single implementation can certainly be open. Just because it's singular does not make it "not open" - that's that attempt to define the term "open" again.
Open does not mean standard, although a standard can be open (or closed), just as an open interface does not necessarily need to be a standard (like GSM or power sockets or RJ45 plugs etc, although it needs to be standardised in that it is relatively unchanging within itself).
Well, in this case it's a countersuit against Kodak. They were not the aggressor here. Kodak wanted a quick settlement to raise some cash to avoid going bust.
There's also the matter of the Quicktake camera - designed by Apple, built by Kodak, then mysteriously coincidentally Kodak files patents on the technology in it. How curious! The suit is over ownership of those patents.
Yes, especially if that weaker prey sues the lion in an attempt to force a quick settlement to stave off bankruptcy. Now Kodak has rocked the boat and dragged up the QuickTake again, Apple is countersuing.