The thing with touch screen is that it's obvious they are filled with grease from fingertips and mucous from sneezing. So it might actually get wiped down once in a while.
But remember, ever other surface you touch is going to be similarly filthy, and because it isn't so obvious, it's probably not going to get cleaned as often.
Unfortunately they also patent a ton of shit and sue people based on that. Yes, rounded fucking corners.
No, not rounded corners. That's a slashdot meme. There is a DESIGN patent (which is not the same as a patent) that has rounded corners as just one line of the description of their design.
Shit, voice search on a phone has been around since I first owned a phone - haven't you fucking heard of "Directory Enquiries" ?
I WISH! LOL Try actually reading the links in my previous post.
I did. It's phrased in a wooly way.And is far from a historical reference. If Microsoft wrote part of Mac OS, it would merit a mention on Wikipedia for example. It doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS
Microsoft did not work on Mac OS itself. If they did, someone would be able to say which part.
Microsoft did do the lead development of OS/2 for IBM though. Yes it came after Windows 1. Elements of OS/2 became Windows 3.
Ok, fine, in that case you simply made an argument you knew to be bullshit and hoped people were stupid enough to not realize the fact your argument was bullshit.
No, what I said was correct. Your post however...
The original iPhone released at $599 for the top sized model without contract compensation.
Of course that wasn't without contract compensation. It was with a mandatory contract.
The current iPhone costs $849 unsubsidized.
Indeed, but you an't compare that with the without-a-contract price of the original iPhone, because it was never sold like that. That's why I compared price-with-a-contract.
You would be the idiot that wanted us to believe the prices were dropping and was arguing that prices had not gone up.
Given that I'm right and you are mistaken, that comment doesn't reflect well on you.
I can't be bothered looking these cases up if you can't be bothered supplying links. But from your own descriptions of them, none of them justify your claim:
It would technically be against the law to make a "Oh, those bad woman drivers" comment in some parts of Europe. Or to tell a racist joke. Or to mock an extremely effeminate gay person.
What you said just isn't true. It's classic right wing hyperbole.
I can't be bothered looking these cases up if you can't be bothered supplying links. But from your own descriptions of them, none of them justify your claim:
>
What you said just isn't true. It's classic right wing hyperbole.
NOT being a patent troll who flat-out is attempting to block out an entire industry.
A patent troll is a company with a patent, usually purchased, that have no intention of making a product that includes the invention. Their primary business is suing others for royalties.
That's not Apple. Apple is using patents in exactly the way they were intended. They patent the innovations that are going in their own products.
And who is to say that prices would not even be lower were not for Apple's junk patent scam?
You claimed prices were rising. They are not.
And what happens in the future when Apple monolopizes the market? As Apple is clearly trying to do.
All companies are trying to monopolise the market, if they can, - that's the top end achievement of increasing market share. In most cases it's not possible. Apple isn't even the biggest mobile phone manufacturer, let alone near a monopoly.
"The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by American psychologist Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_choice
Reducing anxiety is certainly a benefit for the customer.
Your argument is like saying that good design is a benefit for the manufacturer not the customer, because it results in more sales. Clearly nonsense.
Manufacturers sell more because they provide more benefit for the user. In this case by reducing anxiety.
IBM licensed MS DOS (no GUI) from Microsoft. Since Microsoft didn't have DOS at the time Bill Gates subsequently purchased QDOS from Seattle Computer Products and modified it for IBM.
What's DOS got to do with it? The GUI OS in question was OS/2.
Apple and Microsoft as well as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates worked side by side in the early years. Apple contracted Microsoft for all kinds of projects including MAC OS.
No, the software from Microsoft that Apple used was Microsoft BASIC for the Apple II. That's not GUI related. Additionally there was the Mac OS Office applications, but they were third party add ons, not part of MAC OS.
While I agree with you about the above poster not understanding prices
Than you're as stupid as he is. You think anyone here thinks Apple is actually giving away 3G iPhones for nothing? That the cost doesn't come out of the associated 2 year contract. Really?
The iPad with 3G is $20 different in price from the contract free iPhone. The difference will be down to the fact that the iPhone has a much higher DPI on it's screen.
More useful is comparing the 3G iPad with Wifi iPad. And that's $130, which gives you an idea f the price of 3G. Some of it will be hardware, some software, some indeed will be patent licences.
But what has that to do with the claim if RISING prices? That is simply the opposite of the truth.
Rising prices? How so. The entry level iPhone started at $499 when the first iPhone came out. It's gradually dropped and the entry level 4S is now $199.
And you can now get an older model (the 3GS) for free.
How is that raising prices?
Less choice (if that's what we have) is a benefit. See the paradox of choice.
Patents are a system to reward innovation. And we certainly do see plenty of innovation in the phone market.
I just laugh at all the comments over the years. Every time Apple applies and gets a new patent, every Apple lover replies with "b-but but but they'll never use them! And they're probably doing it to protect themselves!" or some other lame excuse.
No they don't. You might be confusing it with Microsoft. Apple has a long track record of enforcing it's patents. And anyone that follows Apple knows that.
Though what is interesting is, *for Apple to do this*, must mean that they are scared. Very scared. Can't compete with inferior tech, so let's litigate.
Which makes no sense. Patents are enforced against inferior copiers all the time. Do you actually follow patent news? You seem to be just spouting wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claims would have more weight if they were from an actual logged in username. But I'm rather more tempted to think an AC is a shill.
To answer my own question, you can turn off multitasking gestures in the OS Settings app.
The thing with touch screen is that it's obvious they are filled with grease from fingertips and mucous from sneezing. So it might actually get wiped down once in a while.
But remember, ever other surface you touch is going to be similarly filthy, and because it isn't so obvious, it's probably not going to get cleaned as often.
Does it manage to overcome the multitouch app switching gestures built in to iOS 5?
Some (at least) tablet OSs have app switching multitouch gestures.
The real answer is use a kiosk. Or to do it on the cheap, put a PC on a table.
We both know I'm right.
You're now listing imaginary patents.
You think I should be one of the slashdot sheeple like you? Baaah! Baaah! Bleeeeet! Baaah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Unfortunately they also patent a ton of shit and sue people based on that. Yes, rounded fucking corners.
No, not rounded corners. That's a slashdot meme. There is a DESIGN patent (which is not the same as a patent) that has rounded corners as just one line of the description of their design.
Shit, voice search on a phone has been around since I first owned a phone - haven't you fucking heard of "Directory Enquiries" ?
Are you trying really hard to sound like a moron?
I WISH! LOL
Try actually reading the links in my previous post.
I did. It's phrased in a wooly way.And is far from a historical reference. If Microsoft wrote part of Mac OS, it would merit a mention on Wikipedia for example. It doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS
Microsoft did not work on Mac OS itself. If they did, someone would be able to say which part.
Microsoft did do the lead development of OS/2 for IBM though. Yes it came after Windows 1. Elements of OS/2 became Windows 3.
Ok, fine, in that case you simply made an argument you knew to be bullshit and hoped people were stupid enough to not realize the fact your argument was bullshit.
No, what I said was correct. Your post however...
The original iPhone released at $599 for the top sized model without contract compensation.
Of course that wasn't without contract compensation. It was with a mandatory contract.
The current iPhone costs $849 unsubsidized.
Indeed, but you an't compare that with the without-a-contract price of the original iPhone, because it was never sold like that. That's why I compared price-with-a-contract.
You would be the idiot that wanted us to believe the prices were dropping and was arguing that prices had not gone up.
Given that I'm right and you are mistaken, that comment doesn't reflect well on you.
I can't be bothered looking these cases up if you can't be bothered supplying links. But from your own descriptions of them, none of them justify your claim:
What you said just isn't true. It's classic right wing hyperbole.
I can't be bothered looking these cases up if you can't be bothered supplying links. But from your own descriptions of them, none of them justify your claim:
>
What you said just isn't true. It's classic right wing hyperbole.
NOT being a patent troll who flat-out is attempting to block out an entire industry.
A patent troll is a company with a patent, usually purchased, that have no intention of making a product that includes the invention. Their primary business is suing others for royalties.
That's not Apple. Apple is using patents in exactly the way they were intended. They patent the innovations that are going in their own products.
Of course that's OK.
And who is to say that prices would not even be lower were not for Apple's junk patent scam?
You claimed prices were rising. They are not.
And what happens in the future when Apple monolopizes the market? As Apple is clearly trying to do.
All companies are trying to monopolise the market, if they can, - that's the top end achievement of increasing market share. In most cases it's not possible. Apple isn't even the biggest mobile phone manufacturer, let alone near a monopoly.
"The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by American psychologist Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_choice
Reducing anxiety is certainly a benefit for the customer.
Your argument is like saying that good design is a benefit for the manufacturer not the customer, because it results in more sales. Clearly nonsense.
Manufacturers sell more because they provide more benefit for the user. In this case by reducing anxiety.
I think you're too young to remember this stuff.
IBM licensed MS DOS (no GUI) from Microsoft. Since Microsoft didn't have DOS at the time Bill Gates subsequently purchased QDOS from Seattle Computer Products and modified it for IBM.
What's DOS got to do with it? The GUI OS in question was OS/2.
Apple and Microsoft as well as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates worked side by side in the early years. Apple contracted Microsoft for all kinds of projects including MAC OS.
No, the software from Microsoft that Apple used was Microsoft BASIC for the Apple II. That's not GUI related. Additionally there was the Mac OS Office applications, but they were third party add ons, not part of MAC OS.
While I agree with you about the above poster not understanding prices
Than you're as stupid as he is. You think anyone here thinks Apple is actually giving away 3G iPhones for nothing? That the cost doesn't come out of the associated 2 year contract. Really?
Yeah, thank you for that Captain Obvious.
The iPad with 3G is $20 different in price from the contract free iPhone. The difference will be down to the fact that the iPhone has a much higher DPI on it's screen.
More useful is comparing the 3G iPad with Wifi iPad. And that's $130, which gives you an idea f the price of 3G. Some of it will be hardware, some software, some indeed will be patent licences.
But what has that to do with the claim if RISING prices? That is simply the opposite of the truth.
Microsoft don't own any shares in Apple.
Rising prices? How so. The entry level iPhone started at $499 when the first iPhone came out. It's gradually dropped and the entry level 4S is now $199.
And you can now get an older model (the 3GS) for free.
How is that raising prices?
Less choice (if that's what we have) is a benefit. See the paradox of choice.
Patents are a system to reward innovation. And we certainly do see plenty of innovation in the phone market.
No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.
Apple do build a better product. Then Samsung copies it. No wonder Apple sue.
Actually Apple hired Microsoft to help program the GUI. Microsoft in turn agreed not to create their own GUI OS and we all know how that turned out.
That was IBM, not Apple.
I just laugh at all the comments over the years. Every time Apple applies and gets a new patent, every Apple lover replies with "b-but but but they'll never use them! And they're probably doing it to protect themselves!" or some other lame excuse.
No they don't. You might be confusing it with Microsoft. Apple has a long track record of enforcing it's patents. And anyone that follows Apple knows that.
Though what is interesting is, *for Apple to do this*, must mean that they are scared. Very scared. Can't compete with inferior tech, so let's litigate.
Which makes no sense. Patents are enforced against inferior copiers all the time. Do you actually follow patent news? You seem to be just spouting wishful thinking.