Morally a parent company ought to be responsible for the actions of it's subsidiaries. Whether Chinese law follows morality in that regard I wouldn't know.
except that every phone released in the last 5-10 years already has noise reduction software of increasingly better quality built in to every phone. Hell, even the iphone 4 had substantially improved noise cancelling
Uh huh.
- in fact, one might even say it's identical to the 4s, cept that it's not on a chip. So it will be just as good at recognizing what you say in everyday environments when it comes to audio microphone capability.
There's no hypocrisy. Apple bought the iPad trademark from a Proview subsidiary. I don't know Chinese law, but it's difficult to see how Proview can now sue for it's misuse.
Canalys are a market research company based in the UK. Like Gartner they make their money by sellling their research to companies for eye-watering amounts per copy.
They've been putting out market share studies every quarter for more than a decade to my knowledge, and for the mobile phone market have more credibility than Gartner. Gartner are better known for PC metrics, but that doesn't mean Canalys numbers aren't credible.
For big apps apple will need to have a lower cut and a much better way for site licenses and multi unit pricing systems / let app makes set a lower price per unit for say packs of 25, 50, 100 and so on.
They do. It's called Apple Volume Purchasing Program.
Office mac top's out at $280 does it really cost $84 per unit to run a store?
You have to balance the sales of a few expensive apps like that against the many more free apps that Apple don't get any income from at all.
The copyleft licenses use intellectual property law against itself, but they would be completely unnecessary if the law did not grant such monopoly privileges in the first place.
Not true. GPL forces conditions on people that has no relation to copyright.
If I modify some GPL code, and distribute the binaries, the GPL forces me to make my modified source-code available as well. In the case of no copyright law and no GPL, I wouldn't have to do that.
The GPL uses copyright to achieve it's aims. Aims that are not about abolishing copyright. GPL is therefore pro-copyright, not anti-copyright.
The government, in particular the current US idiocracy, is the main enemy of free markets.
The Chinese government is far more authoritarian than the US government. And far bigger than the US government. And yet China is doing way better than the US in the world markets. The current estimate from Merill Lynch is for the Chinese economy to exceed the US economy by 2020, and to be double the US economy by 2050.
Perhaps big government is the enemy of free markets. But regulated markets are more successful than free markets.
If you really like freedom a little bit, you need to be on your guard lest all manufacturers of computing devices priced for home users collude to design their products to take away the computing freedom of home users.
There's no such thing for them to take away. If freedom is your schtick: They have the freedom to create or not create whatever products they want in whatever way they want. You have the same freedom. You also have the freedom to buy or not to buy. Nobody has the right to dictate how others should produce their products.
Demanding that companies should produce products how you want them rather than how they want them is actually an authoritarian attitude.
In order to work well with a touchpad, they'd need to change an awful lot more in OSX than the launcher.
1) All selectable elements need to be much bigger and have more separation to be touchable with a finger. Try putting your finger on the Window traffic light buttons for example. Your finger probably covers all three.
2) Mouse hover disappears.
You don't need touch to explain the App Launcher. Despite a few reservations with this first version, I prefer it to the old Application folder popup from the toolbar method. It provides a simple extra level of indirection. I can change the order, and put groups of applications in folders, without changing the on disk layout of the Application folder. Changing the organisation of the Application folder directly is a mistake as App upgrades will result in you having two versions of Applications installed.
Apple did their transitions pretty well before. And they've got another advantage this time. The Mac App Store. It means that only apps that they can be selective about which Apps are listed to a user, depending on what architecture they are using. And it means that updated fat binaries will get offered to users as soon as they are ready. And it means that after a cut off, Apple can refuse to support new software releases which are not compatible with the new architecture.
Between them they would reduce transition problems enormously.
What you describe is how application resources are bundled. But fat binaries are a different thing. They are a single executable file that contains code for multiple instruction sets. Same for both command line tools and Applications.
Most of the output of Siri is visual. So it's be a case of bringing phone to moth and back again each time. And it wouldn't work at all in the most common use case - whilst driving a car.
Your solution isn't as clever as you think. Amazingly you didn't manage to outthink Apple. Does this surprise you?
Yes, Apple denies users what works poorly. No handsfree mode would still work poorly - people would be wondering why Siri doesn't work on their phone like it does for other people, or on the adverts. Hence no SIri support for iPhone 4.
That's not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If one were to say "All iPhones have Siri." And someone else were to say "My iPhone 4 doesn't have SIri" And you were to reply "The iPhone 4 isn;t a real iPhone" Then that would be an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Simply choosing not to run software on an older device isn't a logical fallacy of any sort.
Slashdot Mirror
As an IP discussion: when does the 'non-guaranteed pay' model work and when is it toxic?
Which ever way means that the Slashdotter gets free stuff.
Morally a parent company ought to be responsible for the actions of it's subsidiaries. Whether Chinese law follows morality in that regard I wouldn't know.
except that every phone released in the last 5-10 years already has noise reduction software of increasingly better quality built in to every phone. Hell, even the iphone 4 had substantially improved noise cancelling
Uh huh.
- in fact, one might even say it's identical to the 4s, cept that it's not on a chip.
So it will be just as good at recognizing what you say in everyday environments when it comes to audio microphone capability.
Your conclusion isn't supported by your argument.
Taiwan+China are technically the same country)
No they're not. Taiwan is technically "The Republic of China". Mainland China is technically "The People's Republic of China".
Similar sounding formal names. Very different countries.
There's no hypocrisy. Apple bought the iPad trademark from a Proview subsidiary. I don't know Chinese law, but it's difficult to see how Proview can now sue for it's misuse.
Prediction: Apple will win at appeal.
Canalys are a market research company based in the UK. Like Gartner they make their money by sellling their research to companies for eye-watering amounts per copy.
They've been putting out market share studies every quarter for more than a decade to my knowledge, and for the mobile phone market have more credibility than Gartner. Gartner are better known for PC metrics, but that doesn't mean Canalys numbers aren't credible.
For big apps apple will need to have a lower cut and a much better way for site licenses and multi unit pricing systems / let app makes set a lower price per unit for say packs of 25, 50, 100 and so on.
They do. It's called Apple Volume Purchasing Program.
Office mac top's out at $280 does it really cost $84 per unit to run a store?
You have to balance the sales of a few expensive apps like that against the many more free apps that Apple don't get any income from at all.
Hell, even Woz says that there are things better done on his Android.
Woz says he was misrepresented.
An example is that they've been littering all movies for years, and it's finally been paying off.
That's a result of having the nicest (best designed) products.
In what way is Cook the new Sculley? I mean, other than being an Apple CEO that isn't Steve Jobs.
The copyleft licenses use intellectual property law against itself, but they would be completely unnecessary if the law did not grant such monopoly privileges in the first place.
Not true. GPL forces conditions on people that has no relation to copyright.
If I modify some GPL code, and distribute the binaries, the GPL forces me to make my modified source-code available as well. In the case of no copyright law and no GPL, I wouldn't have to do that.
The GPL uses copyright to achieve it's aims. Aims that are not about abolishing copyright. GPL is therefore pro-copyright, not anti-copyright.
The government, in particular the current US idiocracy, is the main enemy of free markets.
The Chinese government is far more authoritarian than the US government. And far bigger than the US government. And yet China is doing way better than the US in the world markets. The current estimate from Merill Lynch is for the Chinese economy to exceed the US economy by 2020, and to be double the US economy by 2050.
Perhaps big government is the enemy of free markets. But regulated markets are more successful than free markets.
iCloud. All changes automatically ripple through to other devices within seconds. No connecting and syncing with a desktop computer required.
It's 2012, and phones aren't PCs.
If you really like freedom a little bit, you need to be on your guard lest all manufacturers of computing devices priced for home users collude to design their products to take away the computing freedom of home users.
There's no such thing for them to take away. If freedom is your schtick: They have the freedom to create or not create whatever products they want in whatever way they want. You have the same freedom. You also have the freedom to buy or not to buy. Nobody has the right to dictate how others should produce their products.
Demanding that companies should produce products how you want them rather than how they want them is actually an authoritarian attitude.
In order to work well with a touchpad, they'd need to change an awful lot more in OSX than the launcher.
1) All selectable elements need to be much bigger and have more separation to be touchable with a finger. Try putting your finger on the Window traffic light buttons for example. Your finger probably covers all three.
2) Mouse hover disappears.
You don't need touch to explain the App Launcher. Despite a few reservations with this first version, I prefer it to the old Application folder popup from the toolbar method. It provides a simple extra level of indirection. I can change the order, and put groups of applications in folders, without changing the on disk layout of the Application folder. Changing the organisation of the Application folder directly is a mistake as App upgrades will result in you having two versions of Applications installed.
Apple did their transitions pretty well before. And they've got another advantage this time. The Mac App Store. It means that only apps that they can be selective about which Apps are listed to a user, depending on what architecture they are using. And it means that updated fat binaries will get offered to users as soon as they are ready. And it means that after a cut off, Apple can refuse to support new software releases which are not compatible with the new architecture.
Between them they would reduce transition problems enormously.
What you describe is how application resources are bundled. But fat binaries are a different thing. They are a single executable file that contains code for multiple instruction sets. Same for both command line tools and Applications.
Most of the output of Siri is visual. So it's be a case of bringing phone to moth and back again each time. And it wouldn't work at all in the most common use case - whilst driving a car.
Your solution isn't as clever as you think. Amazingly you didn't manage to outthink Apple. Does this surprise you?
Yes, Apple denies users what works poorly. No handsfree mode would still work poorly - people would be wondering why Siri doesn't work on their phone like it does for other people, or on the adverts. Hence no SIri support for iPhone 4.
Ha ha! That'll teach me.
That's not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If one were to say "All iPhones have Siri."
And someone else were to say "My iPhone 4 doesn't have SIri"
And you were to reply "The iPhone 4 isn;t a real iPhone"
Then that would be an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Simply choosing not to run software on an older device isn't a logical fallacy of any sort.
This is all explained perfectly clearly in TFA.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/06/why_iphone_4_wont_get_siri/
Yes, iPhone has some noise reduction, but it's not nearly as good in speakerphone mode - which is the mode most likely to be used with Siri.
And it IS hardware as well as software, so no, the iPhone 4 can't be upgraded with a software update.
No, it suggests Samsung also has the hardware on some of their phones. And that is in fact the case.
Neither of those was unprecedented.
So, does itunes give you your money back for the purchase? If not, sounds like a good class action lawsuit.
Money back on a free app? That's a novel concept. I think they'd need the best lawyer on the world for that one.
My ass. Apple just wants you to buy a new phone.
Argument: "My ass."
Source: Someone with no grasp of the facts.