They are still rectangular black slabs with flat touchscreens and rounded corners with tiled icons.
The Windows Phone UI is innovative and new. and the shape of the devices is different from the iPhone. If Samgung/Android was as different from the iPhone as Windows Phone is, then Apple wouldn't have sued them.
I never said they did./ Nor did anyone else as far as I can see. So what are you on about? Answering a correction to a post with a correction to something no one said?
You doing need "research and survey" nor "a thorough study" to find out what iPhone sales are. They're in the quarterly results. They occasionally drop a little in the quarter before a new model. But the growth in the other 3 quarters always dwarfs that.
So she's just bought an iPhone, disposing of the Android mistake in the process. And she's going to buy a MBP in a few months time. That certainly doesn't sound like someone turning away from Apple.
That summary is rather like the claims Apple was suing Samsung for having rounded rectangle shapes. Taking one aspect of a patent, and pretending that is the only thing in the patent. Are you pretending to be ill-informed or are you really that?
Does anyone here seriously believe that their intention was anything other than what you described - taking out Android?
Their objective is to take out copies of Apple products. They want to take out the Android that is largely a copy of the iOS UI. They wouldn't have had a problem with the original direction of Android, which was a copy or the Blackberry UI. (though of course RIM would have had a problem with it.)
Apple does not have such a luxury. Phones have a much shorter 'shelf life' than a game system, and drastically lower loyalty (largely due to the demographic, I'd imagine). They don't have a corporate hegemony, as the vast majority of their sales are consumers. They don't have reoccurring annual licensing at all, for that matter, and their further releases/updates are highly dependent on people buying new Apple hardware.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple's advantage is not in the cash cows they own. It's that they are apparently the only tech company which has design as their top prority. Ohter companies try to do it, but all the ever manage is lacklustre copies.
We are approaching 'smart phone saturation' at this point. Everyone who wants an Android or Apple cell phone has one, because they're simply that common.
Remember when we were approaching MP3 player saturation point? People like you thought it was all over for Apple then. But instead Apple obsoleted their own iPod with the iPhone. They are doing the same thing again right now. Smartphones may be approaching saturation, but now they've created the tablet market. (After many other companies have tried and failed to do that over the last couple of decades.)
And we are seeing a bit of bedlam amongst Apple users. We sysadmins are all seeing and knowing, after all.:) I have seen a number of power users (can we still use that term, or does that just make me old?) replace their aging Macs with new HPs, Lenovos, etc. due to the constant hardware and software issues they were experiencing (on 10.4 and 10.5 systems, no less).
Far from being all seeing and all knowing, sysadmins will not realise the ground Apple has taken, because unlike what they know, Apple's main market is the consumer market.
Doesn't matter I suppose because Android is crushing Apple into oblivion world wide.
Apple sales aren't a secret. They are a matter of public record. And they are still in rapid growth. Is it that you don't know what "oblivion" means, or are you just ill-informed?
I'd argue they only look similiar because this form makes sense
It doesn't matter what you'd argue. You're wrong, as the court has concluded. You only have to look at Windows phone to see that copies of the iPhone are not inevitable "because the form makes sense".
The Internet was a great step forward. But as far as computers themselves were concerned it was. We when from a wide variety of computer platforms in the 80s to more or less a Wintel monoculture in the 90s, where the only points of distinction between different computers was numbers of MHz, and MBs. The 90s in computing was horrible. If you don't recognise that, you're probably to young to remember what it was like before.
If Microsoft sued everyone for using right-click context menus and double-click, would you agree with them and again propose linux, Apple etc to be innovative and come up with something else?
The couldn't since they didn't invent it, And even if they did, the patent would have expired by now.
Not really, both companies will spend the next number of years appealing these cases in all jurisdictions.
Maybe. But meanwhile, Samsung has already been reacting to the legal heat and is making devices that are less copycat of Apple devices now.. Which is after all Apple's objective.
I can't imagine my office is some sort of anomaly.
There's no need to use your imagination to extrapolate from the guy in your office. iPhone sales are a matter of record, and they continue to grow and grow. "Dying Apple" is is your wet dream, it's far from reality. Indeed Apple just became the most valuable company in the world, ever.
Republicans aren't pure libertarian. A good conservative has a strong libertarianism streak that is moderated by historical experience and common sense. A conservative recognizes that freedom is not just a means to an end, but a good in and of itself.
That's not really a very good description of conservatism. Conservatism is the politics of management of fear and uncertainty.
It is very conservative to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It's very conservative to fear things that are new and accept things that are familiar. That's the essential difference between public services that are accepted (weather, highways, police, education) and those that are called "socialist" (health).
What's truly sad is you do not realize that the support structure which you claim is what really "builds" new business, was itself wholly funded by businesses that came before and the taxes the current business pays...
You seem to have forgotten that people pay taxes.
Businesses truly are not built by the government, or else every business started would be a success.
And that comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my god, the Court decided! So OJ Simpson was completely innocent too just because they said so?
Too? OJ Won, Samsung lost.
Note also the difference between criminal and civil law.
Of course if Samsung had won, you wouldn't be questioning the court result. Bad loser.
I can also tell the difference between a Lacoste polo shirt, and a counterfeit. That doesn't mean that the counterfeit isn't a copy.
They are still rectangular black slabs with flat touchscreens and rounded corners with tiled icons.
The Windows Phone UI is innovative and new. and the shape of the devices is different from the iPhone. If Samgung/Android was as different from the iPhone as Windows Phone is, then Apple wouldn't have sued them.
Neither did Apple invent multi-touch.
I never said they did./ Nor did anyone else as far as I can see. So what are you on about? Answering a correction to a post with a correction to something no one said?
You'll be talking to yourself next.
You doing need "research and survey" nor "a thorough study" to find out what iPhone sales are. They're in the quarterly results. They occasionally drop a little in the quarter before a new model. But the growth in the other 3 quarters always dwarfs that.
So she's just bought an iPhone, disposing of the Android mistake in the process. And she's going to buy a MBP in a few months time. That certainly doesn't sound like someone turning away from Apple.
That summary is rather like the claims Apple was suing Samsung for having rounded rectangle shapes. Taking one aspect of a patent, and pretending that is the only thing in the patent. Are you pretending to be ill-informed or are you really that?
Does anyone here seriously believe that their intention was anything other than what you described - taking out Android?
Their objective is to take out copies of Apple products. They want to take out the Android that is largely a copy of the iOS UI. They wouldn't have had a problem with the original direction of Android, which was a copy or the Blackberry UI. (though of course RIM would have had a problem with it.)
Apple does not have such a luxury. Phones have a much shorter 'shelf life' than a game system, and drastically lower loyalty (largely due to the demographic, I'd imagine). They don't have a corporate hegemony, as the vast majority of their sales are consumers. They don't have reoccurring annual licensing at all, for that matter, and their further releases/updates are highly dependent on people buying new Apple hardware.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple's advantage is not in the cash cows they own. It's that they are apparently the only tech company which has design as their top prority. Ohter companies try to do it, but all the ever manage is lacklustre copies.
We are approaching 'smart phone saturation' at this point. Everyone who wants an Android or Apple cell phone has one, because they're simply that common.
Remember when we were approaching MP3 player saturation point? People like you thought it was all over for Apple then. But instead Apple obsoleted their own iPod with the iPhone. They are doing the same thing again right now. Smartphones may be approaching saturation, but now they've created the tablet market. (After many other companies have tried and failed to do that over the last couple of decades.)
And we are seeing a bit of bedlam amongst Apple users. We sysadmins are all seeing and knowing, after all. :) I have seen a number of power users (can we still use that term, or does that just make me old?) replace their aging Macs with new HPs, Lenovos, etc. due to the constant hardware and software issues they were experiencing (on 10.4 and 10.5 systems, no less).
Far from being all seeing and all knowing, sysadmins will not realise the ground Apple has taken, because unlike what they know, Apple's main market is the consumer market.
No, Apple's "objective" is to sue every other smart phone maker out of business so they can be the only player left in the market.
In your imagination it might be. But not in the real world.
In absolute numbers, yes
So people are not turning away from the iPhone, nor is Apple dying. QED.
Doesn't matter I suppose because Android is crushing Apple into oblivion world wide.
Apple sales aren't a secret. They are a matter of public record. And they are still in rapid growth. Is it that you don't know what "oblivion" means, or are you just ill-informed?
I'd argue they only look similiar because this form makes sense
It doesn't matter what you'd argue. You're wrong, as the court has concluded. You only have to look at Windows phone to see that copies of the iPhone are not inevitable "because the form makes sense".
The Internet was a great step forward. But as far as computers themselves were concerned it was. We when from a wide variety of computer platforms in the 80s to more or less a Wintel monoculture in the 90s, where the only points of distinction between different computers was numbers of MHz, and MBs. The 90s in computing was horrible. If you don't recognise that, you're probably to young to remember what it was like before.
Microsoft managed to make a smartphone platform that wasn't a copy of Apple's. There's nothing innovative about Samsung's copies of Apple's devices.
Rounded corners were only ever the standout issue in the minds of ignorant Android Fanboys. That wasn't the actual case.
If Microsoft sued everyone for using right-click context menus and double-click, would you agree with them and again propose linux, Apple etc to be innovative and come up with something else?
The couldn't since they didn't invent it, And even if they did, the patent would have expired by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_click
Not really, both companies will spend the next number of years appealing these cases in all jurisdictions.
Maybe. But meanwhile, Samsung has already been reacting to the legal heat and is making devices that are less copycat of Apple devices now.. Which is after all Apple's objective.
I can't imagine my office is some sort of anomaly.
There's no need to use your imagination to extrapolate from the guy in your office. iPhone sales are a matter of record, and they continue to grow and grow. "Dying Apple" is is your wet dream, it's far from reality. Indeed Apple just became the most valuable company in the world, ever.
Republicans aren't pure libertarian. A good conservative has a strong libertarianism streak that is moderated by historical experience and common sense. A conservative recognizes that freedom is not just a means to an end, but a good in and of itself.
That's not really a very good description of conservatism. Conservatism is the politics of management of fear and uncertainty.
It is very conservative to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It's very conservative to fear things that are new and accept things that are familiar. That's the essential difference between public services that are accepted (weather, highways, police, education) and those that are called "socialist" (health).
So not true.
You know you're on a loser if your evidence is the blog of the insane Michelle Malkin.
Republicans want lower taxes and less government spending so that people can decide what to do with their own money.
No, Republicans wan't those things because they are to the advantage of the rich and disadvantage of the poor.
What's truly sad is you do not realize that the support structure which you claim is what really "builds" new business, was itself wholly funded by businesses that came before and the taxes the current business pays...
You seem to have forgotten that people pay taxes.
Businesses truly are not built by the government, or else every business started would be a success.
And that comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.
When was the last time you heard a Republican trying to get rid of the National Weather Service?
But why ever not? As a public service paid for out of taxation it's "socialist", surely?