By "stolen from Xerox" do you mean "licenced from Xerox in exchange for Apple stock, that Xerox later sold unwisely and then realised too late so tried to sue instead"? Jobs even told them when they demoed the mouse to him that they were sitting on a gold mine, and when asking what they were going to do with their innovation, he was told that they didn't really see a use for it beyond a curiosity. He then offered to buy it from them.
Your revisionist history textbook needs some edits.
I'd mention the Newton, but I'm not sure it's even *in* that textbook of yours. Where did you get it anyway? The Texas board of education?
Ah yes, the claim that the word "open" is owned by a small subset of people who think it can only and ever mean "open source software".
An Open API is just that - an API that is accessible and documented so that if your software wants to work with another piece of software you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you want to do that.
Much like an electrical plug and socket being standard - the socket is the API to the power in your house. You are not obligated to use it (feel free to install your own connectors or simply splice into the wiring by hand if you must), but sometimes you just want to make a device that plugs into the wall, y'know?
"Openwashing" is such a laughably arrogant term. I'm fully behind open source - I think it is one of the best things to happen in the computer revolution, but running around trying to claim ownership of a term because you act like spoiled children because people you don't like use the term perfectly legitimately to describe an interface/protocol/standard etc just makes you look like your mom forgot to make your eggo this morning and left you in a grump.
No, you said "virus" in your final sentence (the one I addressed directly). Here it is again:
I hope Google pre-emptively starts making ads that the App Store gets viruses before Apple starts another iOS doesn't get viruses meme.
I replied to this with a reasoned argument.
iOS has malware. It's already been proven according to TFA. They wouldn't be lying.
Did you even read my post? It seems not. I carefully noted that my argument was not that iOS had no malware - in fact you quoted me as saying that, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
My argument is that an app that uses a published API to retrieve the UDID is not, by definition, malware unless it does other things that make it so - taking personal info like contact lists and so on, and the study *did* find some of those apps, but a very small handful (on both the official and jailbreak app stores) but that the vast, vast majority of the apps used to make up the "scare number" were doing nothing more than reading the UDID, as they are allowed to do by the terms of the developer agreement. This was then categorised as "leaking" private data, which is simply a gross misrepresentation.
Any actual valid malware findings the study made (and they did find some) were overshadowed by the bias and hyperbole, and manipulation of the definitions to suit the predetermined argument - that the official app store is "less trustworthy" than the jailbroken one. It may well be, but this data does not support that. All this does is expose a biased report, or a woeful misunderstanding of how the app store works.
I'm not arguing that it's not, but the way the story is presented, "personal info" is implied to be things like your name, contacts, email, address, etc rather than the relatively plain (if not totally anonymous) UDID, and that calling it "leaked" personal info, like it's some piece of malware, when in fact it's a common and documented API that is part of iOS is just grossly misleading and sensationalist.
Of course, talking about it accurately doesn't allow the biased point to be made - the assertion that "unauthorised" apps outside of the walled garden are "more trustworthy" than those inside it. It's no real surprise that apps inside the walled garden use Apple-published APIs to collect data more than unofficial apps from jailbreak app stores.
Again, I'm not trying to state that it's necessarily right, or that there is no malware on iOS (the study did find a small handful of genuine malware on both sides), but the story is simply not as presented.
Ok, its more like the MAC address. (yes, yes, I know you can change that on most network devices)
The point is the story is enormous overhype designed to make Apple look bad, since the classification of the UDID being "private data" inflates the numbers and the use of the term "leak" in the headline is grossly misleading, since there's an API for determining the UDID in iOS.
I might as well say my ip address is being "leaked" onto the internet when I go to "whatismyip.com".
The study *did* identify some actual nasty apps on both stores, but they were very few in number (but, importantly, not zero). All that actual useful information is buried under a mountain of "zomg! data theft!" hyperbole over the UDID of the device.
Not that I disagree with the UAC model that Android uses per se, but with your final sentence you're equating apps being able to send your UDID to the developer with a virus?
Let's ignore the fact that, assuming the comparisons were valid it would be a trojan and not a virus, I'm not sure you can logically make the argument that apps on the iOS app store using one of Apple's own APIs to identify the client handset is equivalent to those apps being classed as viruses and malware.
Malware would be an app that harvested data outside of these controls (and I'm not saying they do not exist on iOS - no one is claiming immunity to malware, since that is like saying you're immune to catching a cold, even if you don't go outside and take precautions to avoid sick people), but if Google starts running an ad campaign that "iOS gets viruses" based on this evidence then they would be 100% wrong. If they ran an ad claiming that iOS had malware based on *actual evidence of malware* (and again, note very carefully, I am not saying that iOS has no malware) then they would be on solid ground.
Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the definition of trojans, viruses and malware in general, and also on the way that apps on the iOS app store actually function before you start giving Google marketing advice.
So now you know what it's like whenever an Apple article is posted. A torrent of misinformation and frothing bias, mixed in with a little fact, often twisted around to ridiculous extremes.
I am exactly the same - I had the Sony MZ-R30 portable recorder shortly after it came out, and it was a totally new and wonderful experience making compilations from CDs at high quality instead of onto audio tape. I carried that thing everywhere with me because it actually *was* truly portable unlike a CD discman. It ran for ages on the Lithium ion battery it had too - later portable ones switched to smaller NiMH/NiCd batteries presumably for cost reasons.
I later got an MD deck that I still use to this day - it's 2 feet from me sitting with my amp. The digital I/O works beautifully with my computer.
I remember a trip I made to the US in maybe late 2000 maybe where I was expecting to buy a ton of cheap MD discs because everything with cheaper in the US, of course, only to get there and discover that hardly anyone used it and the discs were hard to find and no cheaper at all than in the UK.
But companies don't have a "ton" of outlets - they have a few here and there, but nowhere near enough to offer "recharge your gadget while you shop/wait/eat" service.
It also depends on the company - in the same way that some charge for WiFi access while others give it away as part of the value add. You're going to see the whole gamut.
Yeah, because making sure there are enough outlets for myriad travellers (assuming that's what you're going to do as an "official" thing, rather than just having your normal number of outlets and just treating their use as first come first serve) is totally easy and free to do, right?
If you're going to set up a specific "charging station", then perhaps you want to ensure its for your customers - like not giving out the WiFi password at the coffee shop unless you buy a coffee, for example.
Of course, in classic slashdot style you go right for the ultra cynical "businesses are eeeeeeeeeeevil" route, with your hyperbolic $20 charge for a few tens of watts of power.
Yeah, I guess being extremely widespread in all markets *except* the US was a read drag...
MiniDisc was doing really well - even little "mini hifi" units designed for use in bedrooms and kitchens etc had MD decks, along with all the portable ones that were the thing to have in the post-Discman, pre-iPod era.
They lost out in the consumer space to mp3 players, but are still widely used in radio. If anything killed DAT (as an audio format) it was... MiniDisc.
Just because MD wasn't wildly popular in the US for some reason does not make it a "failed" format.
Or perhaps, as is much, much, much more likely, it's designed for use *outside the home* at places like bars, airports, malls, coffee shops, restaurants, remote rest areas etc to provide a way to offer power to travelling people who need a quick boost.
Who said it was for the home, or did you just leap on it and froth because it mentioned Sony?
Yeah, you don't hear about that because of the bias of the various reporting going on - where do you think the bulk of those Android phones are made? It starts with an F and ends in "oxconn".
You think Apple is their only client?
The only one that can generate ad impressions I guess.
I agree with you - Apple have taken it too far, but that doesn't mean the original suit wasn't with merit.
The whole situation is just getting ridiculous on both sides. (disclaimer: that does not mean I am trying to "shift blame away from Apple" or "make it seem like everyone is equally guilty").
I don't know - ask all the tech reviewers who mentioned it in their reviews, because there were many at the time.
The newer ones do not (love the SII), but that one model did, and people commented - and Apple noticed.
All the subsequent suits over silly things like sliding to unlock and storing contacts... on a phone! are nonsense, but I can't say I blame Apple for the original "you copied our design" lawsuit (although bringing in the tablets to the same suit was pushing it - they didn;t really look alike, especially when powered on).
How is it irrelevant (unless you're unsure of what that word means)?
The OP talks about naming an Apple *invention* (emphasis his) that Samsung copied, when the discussion is all about the design of the iPhone 3G and Samsung's copying of it.
Now, either he misunderstands what the term invention means, which is possible but unlikely, or he's trying to distort the argument away from the copied design and towards an "Apple doesn't invent anything!" bash instead, rather than addressing the point.
He's doing this because he knows I cannot respond with "Apple invented the iPhone 3G", since that is a nonsense statement - and Samsung didn't copy Apple's "invention" of the iPhone 3G. Samsung copied Apple's *design* for the iPhone 3G, which is a different argument. So, while I cannot "name an invention that Samsung copied from Apple" it does not invalidate my original argument, or the validity of the claim that Samsung copied the iPhone 3G.
The English language is often vague and full of exceptions, but the terms design, invention and innovation all mean different things, and trying to skew the argument by changing terminology around when it suits is just pointless.
Apple didn't "invent" things for the iPhone 3G - pretty much everything that goes into making one has already been invented. Just like most things that go into a modern car have already been invented. You develop and design a new car you, do not "invent" one, in the same way that you develop and design a phone. Some things might be new, but mostly you are developing and using inventions and innovations that already exist. You might use them in new ways, or come up with some other innovative idea, but generally what you are doing has been done in one form or another.
So, no, I cannot "name anything" because Apple have no inventions that Samsung have stolen. Everything Samsung took falls under the heading of design and (to a lesser extent) innovation. Several examples of that, but that's not what the OP challenged (and deliberately so).
This is not difficult stuff, but it's like slashdot Apple haters just lose their common sense and make themselves look intentionally silly when a chance to bash Apple comes up (and for the record, I think the lawsuit mentioned here in the original article is just nonsense, but apparently this makes me a hypocrite because I'm not 100% on one side or the other and actually have an opinion in the middle. Such is the playschool politics of slashdot at the moment I guess).
I agree the new ones don't (and the Galaxy SII is an excellent phone and a strong contender for my next phone), but the phone in question was very much an... homage, shall we say, to be generous. many reviewers commented on it, in ways that they didn't do with other flagship Android phones of the time.
No, the answer is "yes, I can", but it doesn't matter, since whatever example I go for there will be some new reason or excuse as to why it doesn't count, or how it's "not innovation" or "not an invention" or "not a design" (since people seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the difference between the three concepts as it suits them).
I supported the design patent lawsuit over the Samsung copy, but I do not support the lawsuits going after things like 'slide to unlock'.
You're determined to froth and rage at Apple and anyone who takes a different viewpoint to you.
You can also find something stupid and still understand it - I mean, I can fully understand why Apple is doing what it is doing. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think it's not a stupid thing.
I think they have a case re: Samsung's copy, but I don't think they should have pursued it via a lawsuit. Doesn't mean I don't agree that they are in the right.
Similarly just because I think they have a case there doesn't mean I think that all of their legal attacks have any merit, even if they are on legally-sound ground to be able to file them.
The world is not simply black and white, but it seems nuance is lost in this thread, or any time Apple is mentioned on slashdot. It's a shame.
I actually have used both - and I love the current Galaxy SII (I'm considering it as a replacement for my iPhone 3G alongside the 4S when it's time for upgrading).
I didn't actually post a picture in this comment thread, but I did in another one that is also in this story, so I know the one you mean. The phone, music and contacts icons are quite similar (although the contacts icon is missing from the iPhone in that photo for some reason), along with the launch bar and black backdrop. Like I say, I have seen and used Android phones and they don't all look like that (some also have some features that are sorely missing from iOS, in fact).
Again, like in another comment on this thread you're trying to muddy the water to make this all about an evil Apple who does nothing but steal things and does no actual work of its own.
You're either wilfully, (I suspect) or just through plain stupidity (possible but unlikely), misinterpreting the distinction between designing a product and inventing things.
Come back when you are ready to acknowledge the difference. You can leave the thinly veiled "Apple doesn't actually do anything" nonsense at the door too, it only weakens your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
By "stolen from Xerox" do you mean "licenced from Xerox in exchange for Apple stock, that Xerox later sold unwisely and then realised too late so tried to sue instead"? Jobs even told them when they demoed the mouse to him that they were sitting on a gold mine, and when asking what they were going to do with their innovation, he was told that they didn't really see a use for it beyond a curiosity. He then offered to buy it from them.
Your revisionist history textbook needs some edits.
I'd mention the Newton, but I'm not sure it's even *in* that textbook of yours. Where did you get it anyway? The Texas board of education?
Ah yes, the claim that the word "open" is owned by a small subset of people who think it can only and ever mean "open source software".
An Open API is just that - an API that is accessible and documented so that if your software wants to work with another piece of software you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you want to do that.
Much like an electrical plug and socket being standard - the socket is the API to the power in your house. You are not obligated to use it (feel free to install your own connectors or simply splice into the wiring by hand if you must), but sometimes you just want to make a device that plugs into the wall, y'know?
"Openwashing" is such a laughably arrogant term. I'm fully behind open source - I think it is one of the best things to happen in the computer revolution, but running around trying to claim ownership of a term because you act like spoiled children because people you don't like use the term perfectly legitimately to describe an interface/protocol/standard etc just makes you look like your mom forgot to make your eggo this morning and left you in a grump.
No, you said "virus" in your final sentence (the one I addressed directly). Here it is again:
I hope Google pre-emptively starts making ads that the App Store gets viruses before Apple starts another iOS doesn't get viruses meme.
I replied to this with a reasoned argument.
iOS has malware. It's already been proven according to TFA. They wouldn't be lying.
Did you even read my post? It seems not. I carefully noted that my argument was not that iOS had no malware - in fact you quoted me as saying that, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
My argument is that an app that uses a published API to retrieve the UDID is not, by definition, malware unless it does other things that make it so - taking personal info like contact lists and so on, and the study *did* find some of those apps, but a very small handful (on both the official and jailbreak app stores) but that the vast, vast majority of the apps used to make up the "scare number" were doing nothing more than reading the UDID, as they are allowed to do by the terms of the developer agreement. This was then categorised as "leaking" private data, which is simply a gross misrepresentation.
Any actual valid malware findings the study made (and they did find some) were overshadowed by the bias and hyperbole, and manipulation of the definitions to suit the predetermined argument - that the official app store is "less trustworthy" than the jailbroken one. It may well be, but this data does not support that. All this does is expose a biased report, or a woeful misunderstanding of how the app store works.
I'm not arguing that it's not, but the way the story is presented, "personal info" is implied to be things like your name, contacts, email, address, etc rather than the relatively plain (if not totally anonymous) UDID, and that calling it "leaked" personal info, like it's some piece of malware, when in fact it's a common and documented API that is part of iOS is just grossly misleading and sensationalist.
Of course, talking about it accurately doesn't allow the biased point to be made - the assertion that "unauthorised" apps outside of the walled garden are "more trustworthy" than those inside it. It's no real surprise that apps inside the walled garden use Apple-published APIs to collect data more than unofficial apps from jailbreak app stores.
Again, I'm not trying to state that it's necessarily right, or that there is no malware on iOS (the study did find a small handful of genuine malware on both sides), but the story is simply not as presented.
Ok, its more like the MAC address. (yes, yes, I know you can change that on most network devices)
The point is the story is enormous overhype designed to make Apple look bad, since the classification of the UDID being "private data" inflates the numbers and the use of the term "leak" in the headline is grossly misleading, since there's an API for determining the UDID in iOS.
I might as well say my ip address is being "leaked" onto the internet when I go to "whatismyip.com".
The study *did* identify some actual nasty apps on both stores, but they were very few in number (but, importantly, not zero). All that actual useful information is buried under a mountain of "zomg! data theft!" hyperbole over the UDID of the device.
Not that I disagree with the UAC model that Android uses per se, but with your final sentence you're equating apps being able to send your UDID to the developer with a virus?
Let's ignore the fact that, assuming the comparisons were valid it would be a trojan and not a virus, I'm not sure you can logically make the argument that apps on the iOS app store using one of Apple's own APIs to identify the client handset is equivalent to those apps being classed as viruses and malware.
Malware would be an app that harvested data outside of these controls (and I'm not saying they do not exist on iOS - no one is claiming immunity to malware, since that is like saying you're immune to catching a cold, even if you don't go outside and take precautions to avoid sick people), but if Google starts running an ad campaign that "iOS gets viruses" based on this evidence then they would be 100% wrong. If they ran an ad claiming that iOS had malware based on *actual evidence of malware* (and again, note very carefully, I am not saying that iOS has no malware) then they would be on solid ground.
Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the definition of trojans, viruses and malware in general, and also on the way that apps on the iOS app store actually function before you start giving Google marketing advice.
So now you know what it's like whenever an Apple article is posted. A torrent of misinformation and frothing bias, mixed in with a little fact, often twisted around to ridiculous extremes.
I am exactly the same - I had the Sony MZ-R30 portable recorder shortly after it came out, and it was a totally new and wonderful experience making compilations from CDs at high quality instead of onto audio tape. I carried that thing everywhere with me because it actually *was* truly portable unlike a CD discman. It ran for ages on the Lithium ion battery it had too - later portable ones switched to smaller NiMH/NiCd batteries presumably for cost reasons.
I later got an MD deck that I still use to this day - it's 2 feet from me sitting with my amp. The digital I/O works beautifully with my computer.
I remember a trip I made to the US in maybe late 2000 maybe where I was expecting to buy a ton of cheap MD discs because everything with cheaper in the US, of course, only to get there and discover that hardly anyone used it and the discs were hard to find and no cheaper at all than in the UK.
But companies don't have a "ton" of outlets - they have a few here and there, but nowhere near enough to offer "recharge your gadget while you shop/wait/eat" service.
It also depends on the company - in the same way that some charge for WiFi access while others give it away as part of the value add. You're going to see the whole gamut.
Yeah, because making sure there are enough outlets for myriad travellers (assuming that's what you're going to do as an "official" thing, rather than just having your normal number of outlets and just treating their use as first come first serve) is totally easy and free to do, right?
If you're going to set up a specific "charging station", then perhaps you want to ensure its for your customers - like not giving out the WiFi password at the coffee shop unless you buy a coffee, for example.
Of course, in classic slashdot style you go right for the ultra cynical "businesses are eeeeeeeeeeevil" route, with your hyperbolic $20 charge for a few tens of watts of power.
Yeah, I guess being extremely widespread in all markets *except* the US was a read drag...
MiniDisc was doing really well - even little "mini hifi" units designed for use in bedrooms and kitchens etc had MD decks, along with all the portable ones that were the thing to have in the post-Discman, pre-iPod era.
They lost out in the consumer space to mp3 players, but are still widely used in radio. If anything killed DAT (as an audio format) it was... MiniDisc.
Just because MD wasn't wildly popular in the US for some reason does not make it a "failed" format.
Or perhaps, as is much, much, much more likely, it's designed for use *outside the home* at places like bars, airports, malls, coffee shops, restaurants, remote rest areas etc to provide a way to offer power to travelling people who need a quick boost.
Who said it was for the home, or did you just leap on it and froth because it mentioned Sony?
DAT, MD and ATRAC were quite successful actually.
Well, except for American consumer goods, but that's all that matters, right?
I think it's time for your medicine.
Yeah, you don't hear about that because of the bias of the various reporting going on - where do you think the bulk of those Android phones are made? It starts with an F and ends in "oxconn".
You think Apple is their only client?
The only one that can generate ad impressions I guess.
I agree with you - Apple have taken it too far, but that doesn't mean the original suit wasn't with merit.
The whole situation is just getting ridiculous on both sides. (disclaimer: that does not mean I am trying to "shift blame away from Apple" or "make it seem like everyone is equally guilty").
I don't know - ask all the tech reviewers who mentioned it in their reviews, because there were many at the time.
The newer ones do not (love the SII), but that one model did, and people commented - and Apple noticed.
All the subsequent suits over silly things like sliding to unlock and storing contacts... on a phone! are nonsense, but I can't say I blame Apple for the original "you copied our design" lawsuit (although bringing in the tablets to the same suit was pushing it - they didn;t really look alike, especially when powered on).
How is it irrelevant (unless you're unsure of what that word means)?
The OP talks about naming an Apple *invention* (emphasis his) that Samsung copied, when the discussion is all about the design of the iPhone 3G and Samsung's copying of it.
Now, either he misunderstands what the term invention means, which is possible but unlikely, or he's trying to distort the argument away from the copied design and towards an "Apple doesn't invent anything!" bash instead, rather than addressing the point.
He's doing this because he knows I cannot respond with "Apple invented the iPhone 3G", since that is a nonsense statement - and Samsung didn't copy Apple's "invention" of the iPhone 3G. Samsung copied Apple's *design* for the iPhone 3G, which is a different argument. So, while I cannot "name an invention that Samsung copied from Apple" it does not invalidate my original argument, or the validity of the claim that Samsung copied the iPhone 3G.
The English language is often vague and full of exceptions, but the terms design, invention and innovation all mean different things, and trying to skew the argument by changing terminology around when it suits is just pointless.
Apple didn't "invent" things for the iPhone 3G - pretty much everything that goes into making one has already been invented. Just like most things that go into a modern car have already been invented. You develop and design a new car you, do not "invent" one, in the same way that you develop and design a phone. Some things might be new, but mostly you are developing and using inventions and innovations that already exist. You might use them in new ways, or come up with some other innovative idea, but generally what you are doing has been done in one form or another.
So, no, I cannot "name anything" because Apple have no inventions that Samsung have stolen. Everything Samsung took falls under the heading of design and (to a lesser extent) innovation. Several examples of that, but that's not what the OP challenged (and deliberately so).
This is not difficult stuff, but it's like slashdot Apple haters just lose their common sense and make themselves look intentionally silly when a chance to bash Apple comes up (and for the record, I think the lawsuit mentioned here in the original article is just nonsense, but apparently this makes me a hypocrite because I'm not 100% on one side or the other and actually have an opinion in the middle. Such is the playschool politics of slashdot at the moment I guess).
I agree the new ones don't (and the Galaxy SII is an excellent phone and a strong contender for my next phone), but the phone in question was very much an... homage, shall we say, to be generous. many reviewers commented on it, in ways that they didn't do with other flagship Android phones of the time.
No, the answer is "yes, I can", but it doesn't matter, since whatever example I go for there will be some new reason or excuse as to why it doesn't count, or how it's "not innovation" or "not an invention" or "not a design" (since people seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the difference between the three concepts as it suits them).
How do I suport them "up and down"?
I supported the design patent lawsuit over the Samsung copy, but I do not support the lawsuits going after things like 'slide to unlock'.
You're determined to froth and rage at Apple and anyone who takes a different viewpoint to you.
You can also find something stupid and still understand it - I mean, I can fully understand why Apple is doing what it is doing. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think it's not a stupid thing.
I think they have a case re: Samsung's copy, but I don't think they should have pursued it via a lawsuit. Doesn't mean I don't agree that they are in the right.
Similarly just because I think they have a case there doesn't mean I think that all of their legal attacks have any merit, even if they are on legally-sound ground to be able to file them.
The world is not simply black and white, but it seems nuance is lost in this thread, or any time Apple is mentioned on slashdot. It's a shame.
I actually have used both - and I love the current Galaxy SII (I'm considering it as a replacement for my iPhone 3G alongside the 4S when it's time for upgrading).
I didn't actually post a picture in this comment thread, but I did in another one that is also in this story, so I know the one you mean. The phone, music and contacts icons are quite similar (although the contacts icon is missing from the iPhone in that photo for some reason), along with the launch bar and black backdrop. Like I say, I have seen and used Android phones and they don't all look like that (some also have some features that are sorely missing from iOS, in fact).
In that I'm useful to carry out a specialist task? Sure, I guess I am!
Thanks!
You make assertions during an argument - one is a subset of the other, but if you want to be pedantic about it, go for it.
So, what notebook did they "both copy"? All notebooks look alike then? Since they clearly just picked the only design there was and copied it.
Again, like in another comment on this thread you're trying to muddy the water to make this all about an evil Apple who does nothing but steal things and does no actual work of its own.
You're either wilfully, (I suspect) or just through plain stupidity (possible but unlikely), misinterpreting the distinction between designing a product and inventing things.
Come back when you are ready to acknowledge the difference. You can leave the thinly veiled "Apple doesn't actually do anything" nonsense at the door too, it only weakens your argument.