Don't go skipping ahead. If you look from 1:25 you'll see their concept was just an Apple Newton with a bigger screen and a web browser. And concept it was, this wasn't a real product.
Yeah, because there is an infinite number of ways one could design a device that has exactly the same function, being used by people with about the same sized appendages in the same sorts of ways.
That you haven't the imagination to think of a different way of doing things isn't an excuse for copying. Strangely, before the iPhone came along, phone manufactures managed to come up with many very different designs. Now most copy the iPhone to a greater or lesser extent.
Head on down to your local hardware store, and look at the hand tools, and think about why every hammer looks pretty much the same, every screwdriver looks pretty much the same, every wrench looks pretty much the same
I'll tell you why they are allowed to be. Because the ideas are old enough not to be patented or design patented.
It's convergent evolution - once they realized that capacitive screens are better (because no-one wants to mess around with a stylus) then a few common solutions (big screen, no buttons, big icons, smooth dragging) cropped up.
Huh? Big screen, no buttons, and smooth dragging do not follow from capacitative (vs resistive) screens.
Nor are these the defining characteristics of the iPhone anyway. Inertial scrolling with elasticity is more so. But even there, it was invented for the iPod, which had a wheel rather than a touch screen.
Sure Apple did it better. But they also did some of it first. And it's those and the general design that Samsung and others have shamelessly copied. They didn't emerge simultaneously.
And prior to the launch of the iPhone, it resembled the Blackberry UI. Plagiarists are fickle.
the T-Mobile G1 was released 2008 only a couple of months after the iPhone 3G (which was the first "smartphone" iPhone, the iPhone of 2007 not offering apps)
The industrial hardware design, and the UI design don't rely on the supporting of apps. They were both there in the original iPhone. The phone you mention was launched 1 year and 9 months after Steve Jobs publicly demonstrated the iPhone.
Though why you chose a HTC phone when the topic is Samsung's plagiarism isn't clear.
And then, the Xerox meme? Really? Are you that stupid? If you don't know by now that Apple paid for the Xerox stuff with Apple stock, after 30 years of being told, you must be trolling.
From his WP page*, he makes the mistake of conflating growth with exponential growth
Unless you quote the particular text you're criticising, it's impossible to make a judgement whether the PhD nuclear physicist is wrong or you are.
Having watched the lecture in question, I can certainly recommend it. The presentation style is a little boring, but the content is worth it. One of the best web videos I ever saw,.
Anyway, it's up to you folks. But don't bitch about not getting the whole free map thing - now that you understand why it is not in Google's or Apple's or Microsoft's (or fill-in-the-blank-megacorp-giving-away-services) to provide them.
Sure they've all got a commercial interest, but they're not all the same. Apple provides Maps on the iPhone purely as a feature. Up to now it's simply been supplying Google maps. But that;s going to change to their own maps because they can't be dependant on one of their biggest competitors any more.
So Apple's commercial interest is simply to sell more devices. So it doesn't matter to them whether you cache the data on your phone or stream it constantly. In fact they'll save money on bandwidth the more you do cache it.
Apple have no motivation to give their maps to anyone who's not on an Apple device. There will be no battle between Apple and Google for total user count. It's irrelevant to Apple. All thats relevant is their hardware sales. And to a much lesser extent App Store app sales.
I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone
Why? That indicates to me you have a crap mobile phone navigation system. With my dedicated Garmin sat-nav I've never felt the desire to do any pre-planning on a PC. I have a sat-nav to do navigation more efficiently, not to make extra tasks before I travel.
And Apple can not deliver a desktop map because....
No reason at all they won't have it on Macs. It's a pretty likely feature for Mountain Lion. But they have no motivation whatsoever to let non-Apple users have access to them.
Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything.
Apple have no motivation to compete on map numbers per se. Maps for them is just a feature to sell hardware. They will of course give iOS developers an API. And they will of course not allow their maps to be used in any way on anything other than an Apple device. Overall map usage numbers are irrelevant. Only Apple hardware and App Store app sales matter to them.
An advantage in what way? What is it that the companies providing mapping want? Maps is not a symmetrical platform war.
Google uses mapping to advertise. The more users they have on any platform the better for them.
Apple just wants to sell more hardware. Maps is a good old fashioned feature. They will have a motivation to deny their maps to people without Apple hardware. Apple do have an advertising platform (iAd), but it's very much a sideline compared with the main business of selling hardware. And it's Apple only anyway.
Apple's doing it's own maps because they can't rely any longer on the map service being supplied by one of their biggest competitors. They have no motivation to have the most users for them, other than because those people have bought Apple devices.
Meat, potatoes, a sweet, and a greatly reduces risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, I've said from the start that exercise has lots of health benefits, and is well worth doing for that reason. But it will not cure an obesity problem. It's not tackling the cause. The cause is eating too much junk food. I'm not saying don't do exercise. I'm saying just doing exercise will not solve a weight problem, and people will waste months or years of their life finding that out the hard way if they try.
The best thing for a person with an obesity problem to do, is to realise that they're an addict, and look to what people who successfully free themselves from alcoholism and smoking do. Realise that junk food is the problem, and don't just cut down, but stop eating it. And realise that junk food isn't just takeaways and restaurant food. It's most processed foods from supermarkets too. Eat simple foods, and make your own meals from raw ingredients, and realise which of those ingredients need to be used sparingly. Do that and the cause of obesity is gone.
We're agreed that doing exercise and cutting junk for is the desirable health thing for everyone. I just don't want people to believe that an achievable gym program or other equivalent exercise alone will reverse obesity. It won't. It's not tacking the cause. A change in diet is what's required.
But that's not the part I was referring to. It's the myth that when you go to the gym, there will be an increased metabolic rate for the rest of the day that will burn even more calories than you did at the gym. It's not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
And Apple doesn't copy anything. Just watch this video, starting at 4:30 if you're in a hurry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Don't go skipping ahead. If you look from 1:25 you'll see their concept was just an Apple Newton with a bigger screen and a web browser. And concept it was, this wasn't a real product.
And this wikipedia page shows that Samsung used the word "Pad" way before Apple,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad
That was GRiDs product. It wasn't Samsung's any more than the iPhone is Foxconn's.
We can make fuels, hydroarbons, biofuels. We can recycle previously used fossil hydrocarbons.
But by definition, fossil fuels take take geological time to make.
Yeah, because there is an infinite number of ways one could design a device that has exactly the same function, being used by people with about the same sized appendages in the same sorts of ways.
That you haven't the imagination to think of a different way of doing things isn't an excuse for copying. Strangely, before the iPhone came along, phone manufactures managed to come up with many very different designs. Now most copy the iPhone to a greater or lesser extent.
Head on down to your local hardware store, and look at the hand tools, and think about why every hammer looks pretty much the same, every screwdriver looks pretty much the same, every wrench looks pretty much the same
I'll tell you why they are allowed to be. Because the ideas are old enough not to be patented or design patented.
So are you going to actually argue that every GUI that isn't MacOS or Windows is "a problem"?
Huh? Why don't you stick with what I do argue.
Shit at the top, shit at the bottom, grid of icons in the middle. Minor differences in behavior don't equate to being "totally different".
You obviously haven't looked at the original blackberry-copy Android UI. It wasn't even touch based, it was keyboard controlled.
Compare how the software actually functions on the devices, and tell me that Samsung copied the iPhone.
The functionality software is Android, which is a Google product. For sure they copied Apple too, but lets not confuse who copied what.
And yes, as far as "how the software actually functions on the devices", much was copied from the iPhone. e.g. inertial scrolling with elasticity.
Apple and Microsoft were both invited to copy the GUI.
And Samsung were not. See there's not actually a problem with copying when you have permission.
Nothing? Disingenuous.
He's right. Android didn't look anything like iOS until after the launch of the iPhone. Back in those days, Android was copying from Blackberry.
It's convergent evolution - once they realized that capacitive screens are better (because no-one wants to mess around with a stylus) then a few common solutions (big screen, no buttons, big icons, smooth dragging) cropped up.
Huh? Big screen, no buttons, and smooth dragging do not follow from capacitative (vs resistive) screens.
Nor are these the defining characteristics of the iPhone anyway. Inertial scrolling with elasticity is more so. But even there, it was invented for the iPod, which had a wheel rather than a touch screen.
Sure Apple did it better. But they also did some of it first. And it's those and the general design that Samsung and others have shamelessly copied. They didn't emerge simultaneously.
Copy? Android is being developed since 2003
And prior to the launch of the iPhone, it resembled the Blackberry UI. Plagiarists are fickle.
the T-Mobile G1 was released 2008 only a couple of months after the iPhone 3G (which was the first "smartphone" iPhone, the iPhone of 2007 not offering apps)
The industrial hardware design, and the UI design don't rely on the supporting of apps. They were both there in the original iPhone. The phone you mention was launched 1 year and 9 months after Steve Jobs publicly demonstrated the iPhone.
Though why you chose a HTC phone when the topic is Samsung's plagiarism isn't clear.
And then, the Xerox meme? Really? Are you that stupid? If you don't know by now that Apple paid for the Xerox stuff with Apple stock, after 30 years of being told, you must be trolling.
From his WP page*, he makes the mistake of conflating growth with exponential growth
Unless you quote the particular text you're criticising, it's impossible to make a judgement whether the PhD nuclear physicist is wrong or you are.
Having watched the lecture in question, I can certainly recommend it. The presentation style is a little boring, but the content is worth it. One of the best web videos I ever saw,.
We can make more fresh water and fossil fuels
Given a few million years, we could.
Oh give over. Samsung are the ones who decided to copy Apple's products.
The interest on your £10 for many years is still going to be less than difference between oyster prices and paper tickets.
Even less, it's zone 2. £5.60 off-peak, £6 peak.
Suppose your neighbour did homebrew beer. And for a few years he's invited you round for drinks every time a new batch is ready.
Obviously he can't take back any beer he's already given you.
Should your neighbour be:
1) bound to give you access to all future brews too?
2) free to share or not share every time he makes a new batch?
1 = GPL
2 = MIT, BSD, Apache.
Yes. MIT, BSD and Apache and many more licenses do perfectly well without them.
It strikes me you can only get tactile response if you touch them, and if you touch a touchscreen, you've operated it.
I wonder what the answer to this issue is.
Anyway, it's up to you folks. But don't bitch about not getting the whole free map thing - now that you understand why it is not in Google's or Apple's or Microsoft's (or fill-in-the-blank-megacorp-giving-away-services) to provide them.
Sure they've all got a commercial interest, but they're not all the same. Apple provides Maps on the iPhone purely as a feature. Up to now it's simply been supplying Google maps. But that;s going to change to their own maps because they can't be dependant on one of their biggest competitors any more.
So Apple's commercial interest is simply to sell more devices. So it doesn't matter to them whether you cache the data on your phone or stream it constantly. In fact they'll save money on bandwidth the more you do cache it.
Apple have no motivation to give their maps to anyone who's not on an Apple device. There will be no battle between Apple and Google for total user count. It's irrelevant to Apple. All thats relevant is their hardware sales. And to a much lesser extent App Store app sales.
I spend far more time planning routes and finding places in my desktop than I do in my mobile phone
Why? That indicates to me you have a crap mobile phone navigation system. With my dedicated Garmin sat-nav I've never felt the desire to do any pre-planning on a PC. I have a sat-nav to do navigation more efficiently, not to make extra tasks before I travel.
And Apple can not deliver a desktop map because....
No reason at all they won't have it on Macs. It's a pretty likely feature for Mountain Lion. But they have no motivation whatsoever to let non-Apple users have access to them.
Apple can't compete with that with a service restricted only to their OS as it is usually its practice when developing anything.
Apple have no motivation to compete on map numbers per se. Maps for them is just a feature to sell hardware. They will of course give iOS developers an API. And they will of course not allow their maps to be used in any way on anything other than an Apple device. Overall map usage numbers are irrelevant. Only Apple hardware and App Store app sales matter to them.
An advantage in what way? What is it that the companies providing mapping want? Maps is not a symmetrical platform war.
Google uses mapping to advertise. The more users they have on any platform the better for them.
Apple just wants to sell more hardware. Maps is a good old fashioned feature. They will have a motivation to deny their maps to people without Apple hardware. Apple do have an advertising platform (iAd), but it's very much a sideline compared with the main business of selling hardware. And it's Apple only anyway.
Apple's doing it's own maps because they can't rely any longer on the map service being supplied by one of their biggest competitors. They have no motivation to have the most users for them, other than because those people have bought Apple devices.
Meat, potatoes, a sweet, and a greatly reduces risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, I've said from the start that exercise has lots of health benefits, and is well worth doing for that reason. But it will not cure an obesity problem. It's not tackling the cause. The cause is eating too much junk food. I'm not saying don't do exercise. I'm saying just doing exercise will not solve a weight problem, and people will waste months or years of their life finding that out the hard way if they try.
The best thing for a person with an obesity problem to do, is to realise that they're an addict, and look to what people who successfully free themselves from alcoholism and smoking do. Realise that junk food is the problem, and don't just cut down, but stop eating it. And realise that junk food isn't just takeaways and restaurant food. It's most processed foods from supermarkets too. Eat simple foods, and make your own meals from raw ingredients, and realise which of those ingredients need to be used sparingly. Do that and the cause of obesity is gone.
We're agreed that doing exercise and cutting junk for is the desirable health thing for everyone. I just don't want people to believe that an achievable gym program or other equivalent exercise alone will reverse obesity. It won't. It's not tacking the cause. A change in diet is what's required.
I said:
But that's not the part I was referring to. It's the myth that when you go to the gym, there will be an increased metabolic rate for the rest of the day that will burn even more calories than you did at the gym. It's not the case.
Your link backs me up.
So you want to do A/B testing on whether this algorithm is better than A/B testing?
It'd probably be better to use the epsilon-greedy method when deciding whether the A/B testing or epsilon-greedy algorithm is better.
Or maybe not. Well have to test that too.
It's testing all the way down.