Like the GUI and everything else, and Disney invented Snow White. It's all bullshit.
Dude, Google's CEO is on Apple's board of directors. He's in on all the meetings about iOS. And then a while after it launches, Google launches the clone. I'd be pissed if I were Steve, and you probably would have been also.
Look at a pre-iPhone smart phone (say a Palm Treo). Then look at the iPhone. Then look at a post-iPhone smart phone (say a Samsung Galaxy S2). Hardware and software used to be all over the place. Different form-factors, different UIs. Now Android and the phones that run it basically look like clones... because they are. It's not one thing - it's everything. Sure there are minor differences like the notification drop downs or what software keyboard choices there are, but they're just copying each other now, iteration after iteration. *Microsoft* is the only company doing something different right now, and that's a sad thing.
This isn't about Apple - it's about variety. I wish Android and the device manufacturers that support it had some ideas of their own that weren't just "well, it's the same but we have a bit more RAM!" If I wanted an iPhone, I'd buy an iPhone. Instead of competing on experience, all Android can do is wage a battle-of-the-barely-noticeable-specs competition.
At this point, it seems like the "killer app" of Android is the smug feeling that Apple haters get while using it. And that's just not a draw for me.
Of course, he didn't specify which ideas had been stolen, but I struggle to think of anything that the iPhone does which isn't just using a Mac/Windows boiled down to a phone-sized device. I'm sure someone will point one out to me.
It's not going to be one thing. When you create a band called the Beatles and start playing songs from Revolver, it's not like they'll come after you because they have a copyright on the letter B and the idea of playing in 4/4 time.
There were pre-cursors to the iPhone with hardware/software that looked sort of kind of like an iPhone, but not really, and they weren't too popular. There are high-end phones now that don't look like an iPhone, but most of THEM aren't too popular. Basically, the world of phones went from a bunch of different-looking things to a bunch of iPhone clones, basically overnight. Android is the OS portion of the iPhone cloning. Sure there are things that are different, but a lot of the look/feel is obviously patterned on the iPhone.
These things always seem obvious in hindsight, but they're not how things looked before, and they're not the only way to do them. Palm OS looked different before, and the new Windows Mobile looks and acts totally different now.
If you can't see that a Samsung Galaxy S2 running Android is basically a cover band for the iPhones that came before it, then you're either blind physically or psychologically.
Clones aren't necessarily a bad thing, but I do wish there was more variety in the competition other than just slavish copying. The best the Android phones can offer as differentiation are relatively minor differences. It's a sad day when *Microsoft* is the only company capable of doing its own thing instead of just bowing to Cupertino.
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now./quote>
And the Department of Education is engaged in what sort of commerce, exactly?
What's with the Paulites always using his Dr. title when speaking of their god and master? Haven't seen this with anyone else. Has a nice cultist ring to it, guys.
Uh - it was the sarcastic hater that called him Dr. Ron Paul. The voice of reason grandparent left it out.
Jeez. Because deregulating the financial sector has worked soooooo very well.
When on earth did we ever do that? We might have rolled back one or two rules amongst a corpus of thousands, to which new rules are being added with frequency.
Even if (and it's a HUGE if) we ever actually deregulated finance, the fact that the feds get to print as much money as they want pretty much trumps everything else.
So people would have to pay to find out if a hurricane is going to nail them?
Ah America, land where sociopathic greed is not only approved of, but actually encouraged.
Dude, are you under the impression that if the government pays for it then its free? People have to pay now, dumbass!
The difference between state vs federal vs private sector is really just a matter of WHO pays. In the federal case, its folks who are rich enough to be taxed but not rich enough to avoid taxes. In the private case, it might be the people that actually benefit from the service. In the state case, it'd be about halfway between those two...
No more federally provided energy research, no more parks, no more public education, no more low income housing, no more roads & bridges. What a grand utopia he has planned for us.
Fixed that for you. Just because the feds don't give you something doesn't mean you can't have it.
These things all predated the federal government. In what ways have federal involvement made them better?
I can't tell the difference between a Honda and a Toyota 9 times out of 10, and I drive a Honda. If my GF didn't have a sun roof, and there was no hood ornament, I'd have absolutely no way of distinguishing her silver Corolla from the neighbors silver Civic. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
That you're not a car guy. Folks who care about cars could tell a honda from a toyota from just about any angle, even at night given a tail light shot.
That's beside the point though. Even though you can't tell the difference, the engineers at Toyota and Honda can. And both are way to proud of their work to stoop to copying the competition. I wonder what the folks in product and engineering at Samsung were feeling when they got the orders "make it as close to the iPad as we can get away with."
Yeah, there's no patent on the letters b, e, a, t, l, or s. So I guess there's no problem when I name my new band the "Beatles" and start going on tour, right? There's more to this case than just shape or even shape and color. Anyone arguing otherwise is most likely being deliberately dense.
Apple fans can take comfort from this evidence that while Steve Jobs may no longer be with us in the flesh, he lives on in the hearts of journalists. And the reality distortion field is still fully operational.
Equally operational? The slashdot groupthink of doubting each new thing that Apple does... until they make a gajillion dollars off of it... and then explaining it away as marketroid brainwashing. Explaining the mass-appeal of Apple to a slashdot hater is like explaining red to a blind man. Or, it's like jazz. If you don't know what it is, you'll never know. =)
Nonsense. Apple invented the home computer, GUI, mp3 player, smartphone, tablet computer, and now voice recognition. Everyone knows that!
Straw man much? Apple didn't invent these things and a few crazies aside, no one thinks that they did. That doesn't mean that they didn't drive major improvements in each. Geeks think that technical capability is the important part of developing a technology. Apple thought that usability was the important part.
For non-geeks, Apple's answer is generally correct. Which, of course, is why Apple has a bajillion dollars and the haters don't.
You guess wrong, Samsung wants the right to sell a tablet that happens to be rectangular with round corners in Europe back.
lol, just "happens" to have the size and shape of an ipad. and the colors. and the charger. and the home screen. and the box.
in other news, I'm going to start a band. Our name will just "happen" to start with a "B" and then have a few other letters after it that will just "happen" to come in the order "e-a-t-l-e-s". IP law isn't so ludicrous as to prevent me from advertising that, is it? Like who can trademark the letter "e"?
Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.
To the contrary. Large government benefits large corporations. Complicated regulations like SarbOx are affordable for mega-corps but not for relatively smaller corps (though in fairness tiniest of businesses are exempt). Larger corps can afford a larger lobbying budget to get the regs they want and kill the ones they don't. Larger corps can afford the legal and accounting expenses necessary to navigate our labyrinthine IP and tax laws for maximum advantage. There's a revolving door between the defense department and its contractors, between the FDA and big pharma, between Goldman Sachs and the Fed, etc.
Individuals, small businesses and even small corporations are outgunned in this environment. They don't have the resources or the connections to buy the government influence they'd need to compete.
I'd love to see smaller government AND smaller corporations. Big government just leads to big rents sought by big rent-seeking mega-corps.
Some of us are into the whole idea of "free country." Which means that doing what you want doesn't need a reason. Preventing you from doing what you want needs a reason.
"Facebook didn't exist when I was a kid" is a pretty messed up reason to ban something.
Do you think that the reason for Apple's success could be that their devices appeal to the overwhelming majority of the population that doesn't know what "rooting" a device means, and wouldn't do it even if they did know?
Additionally, do you think that the fact that you're not in that majority might make you somewhat less likely to see the value that Apple devices are offering to their intended audience?
Yeah, I guess you could say that the lack of Flash is an advantage for the iPad, but you CAN turn Flash off on a Xoom, right?
I think you're being a bit unfair to the Xoom when Flash-free nirvana is really like just a check box away.
Is the problem that the Xoom enables Flash by default (I wouldn't know, I haven't got one)? I suppose I could see the argument that users who don't know about the check box will have to suffer...
It doesn't "beat out" Flip's products, either. It just barely matches them on feature set -- not a difficult task, because the Flip recorders are likewise extremely poorly specified, and sold mostly on convenience and ease of use at the expense of high-end features.
That's simply an absurd claim. I suppose, however, that instead of actually judging it upon what the pictures look like, modern cameras are now ranked based on how well you can share your (bad) pictures on (bad) websites so you can show your (bad) friends your (bad) adventures.
Well, yeah. That's what most folks take photos FOR. Professional photographers have their wants and needs, but for just about anyone else, photos are about sharing moments with others. Photos of your kids doing stuff, photos of your friends on a trip, photos of a cool sunrise on your vacation. Convenience of use (if your phone is your camera you only need one device), management and sharing can easily trump quality or features.
I have a high-end DSLR and an iPhone 3GS. Guess which one I use more? Ask any pro photographer and he'll tell you that a camera's only good if you have it on you.
As any software developer can tell you, adding features means adding complexity. Any single feature won't make a noticeable difference, but the more features you add, the more complexity you add. Complexity means harder UIs to learn, higher risk of bugs and longer release times.
The task of any project manager is to carefully consider the usefulness of any feature before it gets added. Apple knows how to say "no" to a feature. Their competitors don't. Compare an iPhone to a Windows Mobile device to see what the difference looks like in the end-product.
Folks continue to be surprised that Apple can sell products despite the "weakness" of not having $feature (wireless and FM on the original iPod, floppy disk drives, CD drives on the MacBook Air, Flash/USB on the iPad, and so on ad infinitum). These missing features are individually weaknesses, but for a large section of the consumer market, it looks like the resultant products are considered stronger as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't make a phone, AAPL thought of it first?
Like the GUI and everything else, and Disney invented Snow White. It's all bullshit.
Dude, Google's CEO is on Apple's board of directors. He's in on all the meetings about iOS. And then a while after it launches, Google launches the clone. I'd be pissed if I were Steve, and you probably would have been also.
Look at a pre-iPhone smart phone (say a Palm Treo). Then look at the iPhone. Then look at a post-iPhone smart phone (say a Samsung Galaxy S2). Hardware and software used to be all over the place. Different form-factors, different UIs. Now Android and the phones that run it basically look like clones... because they are. It's not one thing - it's everything. Sure there are minor differences like the notification drop downs or what software keyboard choices there are, but they're just copying each other now, iteration after iteration. *Microsoft* is the only company doing something different right now, and that's a sad thing.
This isn't about Apple - it's about variety. I wish Android and the device manufacturers that support it had some ideas of their own that weren't just "well, it's the same but we have a bit more RAM!" If I wanted an iPhone, I'd buy an iPhone. Instead of competing on experience, all Android can do is wage a battle-of-the-barely-noticeable-specs competition.
At this point, it seems like the "killer app" of Android is the smug feeling that Apple haters get while using it. And that's just not a draw for me.
Of course, he didn't specify which ideas had been stolen, but I struggle to think of anything that the iPhone does which isn't just using a Mac/Windows boiled down to a phone-sized device. I'm sure someone will point one out to me.
It's not going to be one thing. When you create a band called the Beatles and start playing songs from Revolver, it's not like they'll come after you because they have a copyright on the letter B and the idea of playing in 4/4 time.
Look at high-end phones pre-iPhone. Then look at them now.
There were pre-cursors to the iPhone with hardware/software that looked sort of kind of like an iPhone, but not really, and they weren't too popular. There are high-end phones now that don't look like an iPhone, but most of THEM aren't too popular. Basically, the world of phones went from a bunch of different-looking things to a bunch of iPhone clones, basically overnight. Android is the OS portion of the iPhone cloning. Sure there are things that are different, but a lot of the look/feel is obviously patterned on the iPhone.
These things always seem obvious in hindsight, but they're not how things looked before, and they're not the only way to do them. Palm OS looked different before, and the new Windows Mobile looks and acts totally different now.
If you can't see that a Samsung Galaxy S2 running Android is basically a cover band for the iPhones that came before it, then you're either blind physically or psychologically.
Clones aren't necessarily a bad thing, but I do wish there was more variety in the competition other than just slavish copying. The best the Android phones can offer as differentiation are relatively minor differences. It's a sad day when *Microsoft* is the only company capable of doing its own thing instead of just bowing to Cupertino.
1. Receive half a billion dollars in federal grant money.
Seriously. Half a billion dollars is a LOT. We could fund our military and its wars for like a whole DAY on that much money!
The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now./quote> And the Department of Education is engaged in what sort of commerce, exactly?
What's with the Paulites always using his Dr. title when speaking of their god and master? Haven't seen this with anyone else. Has a nice cultist ring to it, guys.
Uh - it was the sarcastic hater that called him Dr. Ron Paul. The voice of reason grandparent left it out.
Jeez. Because deregulating the financial sector has worked soooooo very well.
When on earth did we ever do that? We might have rolled back one or two rules amongst a corpus of thousands, to which new rules are being added with frequency.
Even if (and it's a HUGE if) we ever actually deregulated finance, the fact that the feds get to print as much money as they want pretty much trumps everything else.
If they really are better, then why does NOAA still do all the kickass stuff and run the best weather monitoring network in the world?
The NOAA is competing unfairly. If I don't pay $private_sector_meteorologist for his wares, he doesn't get money. If I don't pay NOAA, I go to jail.
So people would have to pay to find out if a hurricane is going to nail them?
Ah America, land where sociopathic greed is not only approved of, but actually encouraged.
Dude, are you under the impression that if the government pays for it then its free? People have to pay now, dumbass!
The difference between state vs federal vs private sector is really just a matter of WHO pays. In the federal case, its folks who are rich enough to be taxed but not rich enough to avoid taxes. In the private case, it might be the people that actually benefit from the service. In the state case, it'd be about halfway between those two...
But but... the CORPORATIONS will magically provide this stuff for us! And it will be even better! And ponies! And Unicorns!!!
Perhaps, but what about the straw men? Who will provide them?
No more federally provided energy research, no more parks, no more public education, no more low income housing, no more roads & bridges. What a grand utopia he has planned for us.
Fixed that for you. Just because the feds don't give you something doesn't mean you can't have it.
These things all predated the federal government. In what ways have federal involvement made them better?
I can't tell the difference between a Honda and a Toyota 9 times out of 10, and I drive a Honda. If my GF didn't have a sun roof, and there was no hood ornament, I'd have absolutely no way of distinguishing her silver Corolla from the neighbors silver Civic. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
That you're not a car guy. Folks who care about cars could tell a honda from a toyota from just about any angle, even at night given a tail light shot.
That's beside the point though. Even though you can't tell the difference, the engineers at Toyota and Honda can. And both are way to proud of their work to stoop to copying the competition. I wonder what the folks in product and engineering at Samsung were feeling when they got the orders "make it as close to the iPad as we can get away with."
Yes, but have Apple actually patented a shape?
Yeah, there's no patent on the letters b, e, a, t, l, or s. So I guess there's no problem when I name my new band the "Beatles" and start going on tour, right? There's more to this case than just shape or even shape and color. Anyone arguing otherwise is most likely being deliberately dense.
Apple fans can take comfort from this evidence that while Steve Jobs may no longer be with us in the flesh, he lives on in the hearts of journalists. And the reality distortion field is still fully operational.
Equally operational? The slashdot groupthink of doubting each new thing that Apple does... until they make a gajillion dollars off of it... and then explaining it away as marketroid brainwashing. Explaining the mass-appeal of Apple to a slashdot hater is like explaining red to a blind man. Or, it's like jazz. If you don't know what it is, you'll never know. =)
Nonsense. Apple invented the home computer, GUI, mp3 player, smartphone, tablet computer, and now voice recognition. Everyone knows that!
Straw man much? Apple didn't invent these things and a few crazies aside, no one thinks that they did. That doesn't mean that they didn't drive major improvements in each. Geeks think that technical capability is the important part of developing a technology. Apple thought that usability was the important part.
For non-geeks, Apple's answer is generally correct. Which, of course, is why Apple has a bajillion dollars and the haters don't.
You guess wrong, Samsung wants the right to sell a tablet that happens to be rectangular with round corners in Europe back.
lol, just "happens" to have the size and shape of an ipad. and the colors. and the charger. and the home screen. and the box.
in other news, I'm going to start a band. Our name will just "happen" to start with a "B" and then have a few other letters after it that will just "happen" to come in the order "e-a-t-l-e-s". IP law isn't so ludicrous as to prevent me from advertising that, is it? Like who can trademark the letter "e"?
Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.
To the contrary. Large government benefits large corporations. Complicated regulations like SarbOx are affordable for mega-corps but not for relatively smaller corps (though in fairness tiniest of businesses are exempt). Larger corps can afford a larger lobbying budget to get the regs they want and kill the ones they don't. Larger corps can afford the legal and accounting expenses necessary to navigate our labyrinthine IP and tax laws for maximum advantage. There's a revolving door between the defense department and its contractors, between the FDA and big pharma, between Goldman Sachs and the Fed, etc. Individuals, small businesses and even small corporations are outgunned in this environment. They don't have the resources or the connections to buy the government influence they'd need to compete. I'd love to see smaller government AND smaller corporations. Big government just leads to big rents sought by big rent-seeking mega-corps.
Some of us are into the whole idea of "free country." Which means that doing what you want doesn't need a reason. Preventing you from doing what you want needs a reason. "Facebook didn't exist when I was a kid" is a pretty messed up reason to ban something.
Do you think that the reason for Apple's success could be that their devices appeal to the overwhelming majority of the population that doesn't know what "rooting" a device means, and wouldn't do it even if they did know? Additionally, do you think that the fact that you're not in that majority might make you somewhat less likely to see the value that Apple devices are offering to their intended audience?
Because I find things like this to be juvenile.
I find the attitude that being a grown-up has to be boring... juvenile.
Yeah, I guess you could say that the lack of Flash is an advantage for the iPad, but you CAN turn Flash off on a Xoom, right?
I think you're being a bit unfair to the Xoom when Flash-free nirvana is really like just a check box away.
Is the problem that the Xoom enables Flash by default (I wouldn't know, I haven't got one)? I suppose I could see the argument that users who don't know about the check box will have to suffer...
No Linux client, no mobile, no browser, more than 80MB? Lame.
It doesn't "beat out" Flip's products, either. It just barely matches them on feature set -- not a difficult task, because the Flip recorders are likewise extremely poorly specified, and sold mostly on convenience and ease of use at the expense of high-end features.
FTFY
That's simply an absurd claim. I suppose, however, that instead of actually judging it upon what the pictures look like, modern cameras are now ranked based on how well you can share your (bad) pictures on (bad) websites so you can show your (bad) friends your (bad) adventures.
Well, yeah. That's what most folks take photos FOR. Professional photographers have their wants and needs, but for just about anyone else, photos are about sharing moments with others. Photos of your kids doing stuff, photos of your friends on a trip, photos of a cool sunrise on your vacation. Convenience of use (if your phone is your camera you only need one device), management and sharing can easily trump quality or features.
I have a high-end DSLR and an iPhone 3GS. Guess which one I use more? Ask any pro photographer and he'll tell you that a camera's only good if you have it on you.
As any software developer can tell you, adding features means adding complexity. Any single feature won't make a noticeable difference, but the more features you add, the more complexity you add. Complexity means harder UIs to learn, higher risk of bugs and longer release times.
The task of any project manager is to carefully consider the usefulness of any feature before it gets added. Apple knows how to say "no" to a feature. Their competitors don't. Compare an iPhone to a Windows Mobile device to see what the difference looks like in the end-product.
Folks continue to be surprised that Apple can sell products despite the "weakness" of not having $feature (wireless and FM on the original iPod, floppy disk drives, CD drives on the MacBook Air, Flash/USB on the iPad, and so on ad infinitum). These missing features are individually weaknesses, but for a large section of the consumer market, it looks like the resultant products are considered stronger as a result.