US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years, which was changed from 17 years to align with the WTO. Therefore, Apple can flex that legal muscle (read: screw everyone that doesn't buy an iPhone) until 2018.
Art Levinstein has been on the board for years, working with Jobs to do what he did. He was a personal friend of Jobs, and gave medical advice (which was ignored).
More than that, Ellison was decrying in 1995 how stupid it is to put software onto a piece of plastic, put the plastic in a box, put the box onto a pallet, put the pallet in a truck, drive the truck to a store, take the pallet out of the truck, take the box off the pallet and put it on a shelf, have someone pick it up off the shelf and put it in their car, drive their car home, take the box out of the car, take the plastic out of the box, and then get the software out of the plastic onto your computer.
I guess "The Cloud" is the new "Software as a Service", which is the new "Network Computer", which was the new "Dumb terminal" 15 years ago.
Apple did care, and even had a working version of ZFS on Mac OS X 10.6. However, they were unable to come to licensing terms with Sun at the time, and unceremoniously ripped the project from Mac OS Forge. If you go a-Googling, you can probably still find the release candidate filesystem drivers.
Also, FreeBSD 8+ has an (older) implementation of ZFS, which I believe they pulled from the OpenSolaris and found a way to make it work.
And not a peep out of the Dept. of Justice on such anti-competitive practices.
I forgot that Apple was the only company that made smartphones, or an OS for said phones. Oh wait, they're not; and they're not even the market share leader.
Stop crying for the Government to waste their time fixing a problem that doesn't exist anywhere but in your ignorance.
If you already have a Mac (or a vmware session of Mac OS X), you can download Xcode for the low price of $0.00. You can then write your app, and test it on the software emulator included, which is rather good. Should you think that you have something worth putting out there, you can then choose to upgrade your free developer account to the $99 annual fee'd account, and submit your app. The clock on that fee starts running when you pay it, so you can do MONTHS of development with the free tools and sim before you pay up.
Just like in Q4 of the calendar year, when the Today show does a 4 minute piece on Tickle Me Elmo or whatever, and it becomes impossible to find one because world + dog went out and bought every single one available.
It's no different, except that supply isn't constrained on digital products.
Which isn't that far removed for building your widget, and then placing it in a SuperMegaWalCoMart by working deals with their merchandizers where they screw you big time for better product placement on their plan-o-grams; and then someone would have to walk down aisle 73B and pick it out of the 8-foot shelves amongst the 43 other knockoff versions. Except you need that person to drive to the SuperMegaWalCoMart to begin with, to say nothing of manufacturing, packing, shipping, and marketing your widget.
There's just as much chance of failure in making and selling physical goods as there are in digital. This is why everyone doesn't just start their own business - there's risk involved, and some people don't want to stomach it.
I was driving home from work yesterday and saw a billboard for an app, with the "Available in the App Store" logo in the bottom right corner. This is the first time I've seen a billboard for an iOS app, and I thought to myself that this guy / company was going to get thousands of eyeballs looking at his outdoor advertisement, and many of those will have the ability to go look on the app store *right now* to see what that app is about, if not buy it right then.
Hopefully, they are passengers in the car, and not driving it.
It's just shocking that it's taken this long for someone to do that. I just looked up the exact billboard that I saw it on, and they get their 14' x 48' ad on a well-travelled freeway (the Norwood lateral connector between I-75 and I-71 in Cincinnati, OH) which is illuminated 18 hours a day for $4000 a month; and the price goes down if you buy multiple months.
If that app is even halfway worth two shits, he'll make his $99 and probably the $4000 for that billboard in a couple days. And people cry about $99 a year.
If John Q. Wallet invents some must-have widget which is easy to manufacture, cheap, and available everywhere; and suddenly sells millions of them, I'll bet he's feeling pretty good about that too. However, if he invents something that is a piece of crap that no one buys, he's going to have just as much of a loss.
This phenomenon is hardly new, and certainly not localized to the iTunes App Store.
I guess that's the part that you Occupy guys don't ever quite suss out.
Do you really think that "the 1%" is going to eat the cost of paying someone better wages and benefits, or do you think they are going to roll that into the price that "the 99%" pays for the same goods and services that they already buy?
How do you think "the 1%" became "the 1%" in the first place? How does it serve "the 99%" to pay more for stuff when they are already financially burdened in this current economy?
The solution to the current problems are WAY more complex than what anyone has put forth thus far. Guys with Nobel prizes in economics don't even understand it.
It also doesn't work if you're a corporation that has to comply with Safe Harbor regulations, which is kind of the point. The corporation is RIM's customer, and they aren't delivering anything close to what the customer needs.
If you screw your customers over to get an extra buck out of a service that they most certainly can live without, they will.
If you offer a service they want, for a reasonable price, they will use that service. See: the first couple years of your streaming service, and it's massive growth.
The physics package was originally designed for the Titan series of ICBMs. It was then put into a steel case the size of a car, and put in service on B52 strategic bombers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The B52 could actually carry two of these things - one in each bomb bay.
Yes, this particular gravity bomb was carried by a B52. However, the "physics package" was originally designed to be a warhead on a Titan missile, and then modified for the B52 and put in service during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
An approximation of thermal pulse radius, overpressure, and fallout drift for several bomb yields, including Ivy Mike (10 Mt), overlaid on Google Maps.
This helps our nation because this weapon was doing nothing but spending money for the last 50 years. It will never be used - you can do much more destruction with a modern Minuteman-III than you could ever do with this thing; and cheaper too.
There's a reason why our nuclear weapons propellerheads started going for less yield rather than more in the late '50s. Big explosions are neat, and all that; but you can blow up a lot more shit with MIRV, it's easier to maintain, costs way less to manufacture, and allows for neat stuff like dummy warheads and ABM countermeasures with the weight savings.
Oh, and our missile crews have their performance measured in yards from hitting an oil barrel 9,000 miles away during a launch test, so they can put a 450 Kt bomb through your bedroom window if they really want to. With those kinds of capabilities, why do we need this huge piece of shit from the dick measuring contests of the 1950s?
More to the point, having a big ass nuke like this thing requires a big ass rocket to lift it. There are no countermeasures to prevent someone from shooting your one big ass nuke into bits before it can deliver it's yield; and it costs more to build and maintain than more modern designs.
Oh, and putting 3 to 10 smaller nukes on top of a smaller rocket with better guidance packages and available space for dummy warheads delivers way more destruction for way less money. Capitalism at it's finest!
See: inverse cube law, as it applies to expanding spheres Titan-II ICBM Minuteman-III ICBM Trident D3 SLBM Peacekeeper/MX ICBM (though these have since been retired as well)
Hell, my 2008 BMW does a better job of voice commands than most Android phones, and it's software was written in 2007. Mercedes, Lexus, Ford, VW, and many others also have voice control in their on-board computers in the last 4 to 5 years.
Like I posted previously, Apple's been working on this for 20+ years.
The inspiration behind Siri was Apple's "Knowledge Navigator" presentation from the late 1980s. The developers admitted it when they launched the iPhone app a couple years ago. Irony: in the video they produced, the date was September 2011. Guess they missed it by a month.
Apple shipped the Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV Macs in 1993 that optionally used speech recognition to control the Finder. On a 40Mhz 68040 with 8MB of RAM. Almost 20 years ago.
They have a lot of experience with this stuff, and are only now implementing it in a reasonable way because it's only now matured to a point where they can.
If we're being honest, Apple had the same kind of voice control that Android uses on System 7 (before the Mac OS rebrand) on the Macintosh Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV in 1993.
It didn't work very well either, but it was only working with a 40 Mhz 68040 processor, 8MB of RAM, and software of almost 20 years ago.
Between that, and the speech-to-text on the Newton, I would say that Apple has far more experience with this than most other software-publishing companies.
Anything else that you're going to add to the equation in order to try to run up the price? We're still several hundred under your figure that you originally quoted, for a Mac Mini, iOS developer account, USB KVM, MDP to VGA adapter, keyboard, display, and mouse.
It depends on the implementation. If their "focusing on the battle between the Horde and the Alliance" means that they are going to have a bunch of compulsory pvp objectives, then they might as well just give certain servers to certain factions because of population imbalances.
They're going to have to come up with a way to make it work, because nothing they've come up with yet has.
Slashdot Mirror
US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years, which was changed from 17 years to align with the WTO. Therefore, Apple can flex that legal muscle (read: screw everyone that doesn't buy an iPhone) until 2018.
Art Levinstein has been on the board for years, working with Jobs to do what he did. He was a personal friend of Jobs, and gave medical advice (which was ignored).
This is NOT a Sculley redux.
More than that, Ellison was decrying in 1995 how stupid it is to put software onto a piece of plastic, put the plastic in a box, put the box onto a pallet, put the pallet in a truck, drive the truck to a store, take the pallet out of the truck, take the box off the pallet and put it on a shelf, have someone pick it up off the shelf and put it in their car, drive their car home, take the box out of the car, take the plastic out of the box, and then get the software out of the plastic onto your computer.
I guess "The Cloud" is the new "Software as a Service", which is the new "Network Computer", which was the new "Dumb terminal" 15 years ago.
Apple did care, and even had a working version of ZFS on Mac OS X 10.6. However, they were unable to come to licensing terms with Sun at the time, and unceremoniously ripped the project from Mac OS Forge. If you go a-Googling, you can probably still find the release candidate filesystem drivers.
Also, FreeBSD 8+ has an (older) implementation of ZFS, which I believe they pulled from the OpenSolaris and found a way to make it work.
And not a peep out of the Dept. of Justice on such anti-competitive practices.
I forgot that Apple was the only company that made smartphones, or an OS for said phones. Oh wait, they're not; and they're not even the market share leader.
Stop crying for the Government to waste their time fixing a problem that doesn't exist anywhere but in your ignorance.
Score: -1 wrong
If you already have a Mac (or a vmware session of Mac OS X), you can download Xcode for the low price of $0.00. You can then write your app, and test it on the software emulator included, which is rather good. Should you think that you have something worth putting out there, you can then choose to upgrade your free developer account to the $99 annual fee'd account, and submit your app. The clock on that fee starts running when you pay it, so you can do MONTHS of development with the free tools and sim before you pay up.
Just like in Q4 of the calendar year, when the Today show does a 4 minute piece on Tickle Me Elmo or whatever, and it becomes impossible to find one because world + dog went out and bought every single one available.
It's no different, except that supply isn't constrained on digital products.
Which isn't that far removed for building your widget, and then placing it in a SuperMegaWalCoMart by working deals with their merchandizers where they screw you big time for better product placement on their plan-o-grams; and then someone would have to walk down aisle 73B and pick it out of the 8-foot shelves amongst the 43 other knockoff versions. Except you need that person to drive to the SuperMegaWalCoMart to begin with, to say nothing of manufacturing, packing, shipping, and marketing your widget.
There's just as much chance of failure in making and selling physical goods as there are in digital. This is why everyone doesn't just start their own business - there's risk involved, and some people don't want to stomach it.
I was driving home from work yesterday and saw a billboard for an app, with the "Available in the App Store" logo in the bottom right corner. This is the first time I've seen a billboard for an iOS app, and I thought to myself that this guy / company was going to get thousands of eyeballs looking at his outdoor advertisement, and many of those will have the ability to go look on the app store *right now* to see what that app is about, if not buy it right then.
Hopefully, they are passengers in the car, and not driving it.
It's just shocking that it's taken this long for someone to do that. I just looked up the exact billboard that I saw it on, and they get their 14' x 48' ad on a well-travelled freeway (the Norwood lateral connector between I-75 and I-71 in Cincinnati, OH) which is illuminated 18 hours a day for $4000 a month; and the price goes down if you buy multiple months.
If that app is even halfway worth two shits, he'll make his $99 and probably the $4000 for that billboard in a couple days. And people cry about $99 a year.
If John Q. Wallet invents some must-have widget which is easy to manufacture, cheap, and available everywhere; and suddenly sells millions of them, I'll bet he's feeling pretty good about that too. However, if he invents something that is a piece of crap that no one buys, he's going to have just as much of a loss.
This phenomenon is hardly new, and certainly not localized to the iTunes App Store.
I guess that's the part that you Occupy guys don't ever quite suss out.
Do you really think that "the 1%" is going to eat the cost of paying someone better wages and benefits, or do you think they are going to roll that into the price that "the 99%" pays for the same goods and services that they already buy?
How do you think "the 1%" became "the 1%" in the first place? How does it serve "the 99%" to pay more for stuff when they are already financially burdened in this current economy?
The solution to the current problems are WAY more complex than what anyone has put forth thus far. Guys with Nobel prizes in economics don't even understand it.
It also doesn't work if you're a corporation that has to comply with Safe Harbor regulations, which is kind of the point. The corporation is RIM's customer, and they aren't delivering anything close to what the customer needs.
If you screw your customers over to get an extra buck out of a service that they most certainly can live without, they will.
If you offer a service they want, for a reasonable price, they will use that service. See: the first couple years of your streaming service, and it's massive growth.
This isn't exactly nuclear physics.
The physics package was originally designed for the Titan series of ICBMs. It was then put into a steel case the size of a car, and put in service on B52 strategic bombers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The B52 could actually carry two of these things - one in each bomb bay.
Yes, this particular gravity bomb was carried by a B52. However, the "physics package" was originally designed to be a warhead on a Titan missile, and then modified for the B52 and put in service during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
You can click on the ordinal on the lower left to change wind direction.
Here. http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20
An approximation of thermal pulse radius, overpressure, and fallout drift for several bomb yields, including Ivy Mike (10 Mt), overlaid on Google Maps.
This helps our nation because this weapon was doing nothing but spending money for the last 50 years. It will never be used - you can do much more destruction with a modern Minuteman-III than you could ever do with this thing; and cheaper too.
There's a reason why our nuclear weapons propellerheads started going for less yield rather than more in the late '50s. Big explosions are neat, and all that; but you can blow up a lot more shit with MIRV, it's easier to maintain, costs way less to manufacture, and allows for neat stuff like dummy warheads and ABM countermeasures with the weight savings.
Oh, and our missile crews have their performance measured in yards from hitting an oil barrel 9,000 miles away during a launch test, so they can put a 450 Kt bomb through your bedroom window if they really want to. With those kinds of capabilities, why do we need this huge piece of shit from the dick measuring contests of the 1950s?
More to the point, having a big ass nuke like this thing requires a big ass rocket to lift it. There are no countermeasures to prevent someone from shooting your one big ass nuke into bits before it can deliver it's yield; and it costs more to build and maintain than more modern designs.
Oh, and putting 3 to 10 smaller nukes on top of a smaller rocket with better guidance packages and available space for dummy warheads delivers way more destruction for way less money. Capitalism at it's finest!
See:
inverse cube law, as it applies to expanding spheres
Titan-II ICBM
Minuteman-III ICBM
Trident D3 SLBM
Peacekeeper/MX ICBM (though these have since been retired as well)
Hell, my 2008 BMW does a better job of voice commands than most Android phones, and it's software was written in 2007. Mercedes, Lexus, Ford, VW, and many others also have voice control in their on-board computers in the last 4 to 5 years.
Like I posted previously, Apple's been working on this for 20+ years.
The inspiration behind Siri was Apple's "Knowledge Navigator" presentation from the late 1980s. The developers admitted it when they launched the iPhone app a couple years ago. Irony: in the video they produced, the date was September 2011. Guess they missed it by a month.
Apple shipped the Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV Macs in 1993 that optionally used speech recognition to control the Finder. On a 40Mhz 68040 with 8MB of RAM. Almost 20 years ago.
They have a lot of experience with this stuff, and are only now implementing it in a reasonable way because it's only now matured to a point where they can.
If we're being honest, Apple had the same kind of voice control that Android uses on System 7 (before the Mac OS rebrand) on the Macintosh Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV in 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Quadra_840AV
It didn't work very well either, but it was only working with a 40 Mhz 68040 processor, 8MB of RAM, and software of almost 20 years ago.
Between that, and the speech-to-text on the Newton, I would say that Apple has far more experience with this than most other software-publishing companies.
Or, you can get a cheap $4 usb keyboard and a cheap $2 usb mouse. Oh, and as for the display, here's a flat panel that can be had for less than $30
Or, here's a $6 USB KVM that comes with two sets of cables. Google is hard.
Anything else that you're going to add to the equation in order to try to run up the price? We're still several hundred under your figure that you originally quoted, for a Mac Mini, iOS developer account, USB KVM, MDP to VGA adapter, keyboard, display, and mouse.
Mists of Pandaria, or Mists of Pandering to who will still give us $14 a month?
It depends on the implementation. If their "focusing on the battle between the Horde and the Alliance" means that they are going to have a bunch of compulsory pvp objectives, then they might as well just give certain servers to certain factions because of population imbalances.
They're going to have to come up with a way to make it work, because nothing they've come up with yet has.