Nokia is suing because it got sick of attempting to extort unreasonable licensing fees from Apple for the patents they were using.
Fixed that for you.
I suspect Apple would have paid reasonable licensing fees for those patents but the word on the street is that Nokia asked for more than what Apple felt was reasonable for patent licensing fees when those patents are involved in a standards-related technology. I don't recall the legal term but the short version is that, because those patents are involved in standard technology, Nokia is required to offer the licenses at reasonable rates - in other words, they can't play hardball.
So, sorry, but I don't think Nokia has asked nicely for anything from Apple.
If we keep dumping it into the ocean, we'll run out...
(My sense of "this is a disgusting natural disaster that we need to take seriously and solve now" lost its battle with my sense of "I can be a smartass and make a joke". Sorry...)
It would also get the attention of their shareholders right damn quick as half (yes, HALF) of their consumer base would vanish in an instant. Shareholders love it when you erase half of your market in an instant. But, hey, I'm sure Apple would notice also...
Sorry, but Adobe's reaction to this situation is making one thing absolutely crystal clear - they are shitting their pants right now. They are terrified. They know their major cash cow is in major trouble and they are going to fight with every trick in the book to avoid the inevitable. Because, that is what it is - inevitable. Flash is becoming old news and nothing Adobe can do is going to change that fact. Their tantrum-throwing flailing isn't going to change things. HTML5 is going to push Flash to the side. It may not stick in the long term (I think it will but I won't argue that fact because the industry is always changing) but it will certainly provide the catalyst for people to move on to something else.
Sorry, but as soon as I see numbers like $51 BILLION in software theft being thrown around, I pretty much immediately ignore everything that is to follow because the number, pure and simple, is bullshit. Can I prove that it's bullshit? Nope. Of course not. And that's the point - nobody can prove that it's bullshit so they can bandy it about with impunity knowing it won't be challenged. But, just as I can't prove that it's bullshit, they can't prove that it's remotely valid. And, therein, is why I ignore reports like this - when numbers can't be challenged to ensure their validity, then the person coming up with the numbers can fluff the numbers to help ensure they prove whatever point they are trying to prove.
My sympathy for major media companies being forced to do some work for their money is pretty much non-existent. Welcome to the real world with the rest of us. Enjoy your stay. Get to work.
If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.
Hesitant to use a Linux-based OS? Doubtful. If Chrome OS fails, OEMs might be hesitant to use a Google-developed OS on future products but I don't think it'll impact their view of Linux-based OSes one bit. Either they're open to them or they aren't - the success or failure of Chrome won't change that. What will change is their opinion on Google's offerings. Google should hold off to make sure their foray into the OS market doesn't die before they get a chance to succeed. Unlike the web, you can't release a beta OS into the market and fix it until it works. Consumers who are buying products won't wait around for you to get it right. On the web, sure - knock yourself out. Take a few years to polish the product until you're happy and content to remove the beta tag. On people's computers, either a person is enough of a tinkerer that they'll play with their OS more than Google will or they just want their computer to work and will expect the OS to be finished (as much as can be reasonably expected) from the get-go.
Chrome will have no impact, positive nor negative, upon anyone's opinion of Linux-based OSes. It will only impact people's opinions on Google's OS offerings.
How do so many people seem to miss the rather glaring issue that Apple has no desire to be a slave to a third party development tool. They've stated as much and it is a very real and serious concern. They offer features to their customers but, if a third party provides developer tools (such as Adobe with Flash) and that third party decides to take their time offering support for those new features or to outright not offer it at all then those features do not make it to the customer. That is a serious concern. In an environment where manufacturers need to provide every advantage possible to stand out from the other offerings on the market, Apple would be hamstringing themselves if they allowed Adobe, rather than themselves, to dictate what features do and do not make it to their customers. Anyone who thinks, even for a second, that this is a trivial part of the equation is not thinking clearly about things.
I'm surprised that InfoWorld completely overlooked this very real and very significant concern. Ah, who'm I kidding?... I'm not surprised at all... sigh...
This is one of many reasons why Bell will never again see a dime of my money. I know they're all corrupt, greedy bastards but Bell seems to take it to extreme levels. Their sense of entitlement has led to them losing massive quantities of customers (beyond what would have been expected by the enforced competition rules). They have failed, utterly, to view their customers as anything of value and it's starting to show. They may be making cost cutting decisions and taking steps to increase revenue but, until they realize that keeping customers satisfied is important, they will continue to lose money and continue to be forced to lay off massive portions of their work force.
Welcome to the end, Bell. It is of your own making. I hope you enjoy the ride.
Re:It's called "PERSONAL PROPERTY," Apple!
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Ah, how cute. I have an anonymous coward slashdot stalker. How pitiful is your life that you feel the necessity to post these trite little replies to my Apple-related comments?
Please, keep it up - it amuses me. I'll actually feel like I've gone astray should your replies stop gracing my comments.
(And, for the record, just putting a CD into the microwave accomplishes the same thing but in a much cooler way - give it a try - awesome light show:)
Re:It's called "PERSONAL PROPERTY," Apple!
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple deliberately and actively do not sell you software that they don't approve. Apple has not, to my knowledge, taken any action against people jailbreaking their device and running unapproved software (and fixing security holes that lead to jailbreaking does not count as taking action against the process - it's fixing security holes). Further, developers can make web apps that run on the iPhone (see Google Voice or Bejeweled 2 for examples). So, no, Apple does not "deliberately and actively work to prevent you from running unapproved software on the iPhone/iPad" - they simply won't sell apps through their store unless the apps are made to their specifications.
In other words, it may be difficulty for me to install and run Flash on my microwave but, similarly, it is difficult (less so, compared to my efforts with my microwave...) for you to install and run Flash on your iPhone. In both cases, however, it is possible for the end user to use the device however they want, with a bit of difficulty.
Re:It's called "PERSONAL PROPERTY," Apple!
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I want to run Flash on my microwave - who do I complain to since I can't. I want to use my device in whatever manner I want to, just as you say - I want to run Flash on my microwave.
And, if you can't see the similarity between my far-fetched comment and using Flash on one of Apple's devices, then you aren't looking at the entire picture.
The iPad isn't killing Netbooks, they're doing that all by themselves.
While I think the iPad is unquestionably having an impact on netbook sales, I think your point here is also 100% correct. Netbooks previously were very inexpensive computing options. Lean, mean, cheap machines. Recently, however, the typical drive for bigger numbers and more features has pushed the prices back up to the same level as a full-fledged laptop which forces a consumer to ask "if I'm spending that much money, why am I getting a tiny machine? Why not just buy a laptop?" When the price was in the $150-$250 range, there was a compelling reason to buy a netbook (assuming that's all you needed) - the price. That edge is now gone.
It should be surprising to nobody that netbook sales are declining.
Is it really so hard for people to believe that Flash on a Mac is so poorly implemented as to suck, Flash on mobile devices is poorly suited (due to touch interface) and is a significant memory drain, and that Apple really does not want to be at the mercy of a 3rd party developer when providing features to their customers. Why are people so intent on find some alternate reason when the reasons that have been outlined are actually valid and true? When Flash doesn't suck on a Mac (including iPhone OS); when Flash isn't a memory drain; when Flash is suited to (multi)touch interfaces; when Adobe actually steps up to the plate and takes development within the Mac ecosystem seriously (how long did it take Adobe to release Creative Suite optimized for OSX?...), then, and only then, can we discuss other reasons that Apple may be interested in keeping Flash off their mobile devices. Until then, however, there are some very significant and glaring reasons that Adobe doesn't deserve to have Flash on the iPhone/iPad.
Translation: Adobe, get your shit together. When half your market uses a Mac, you need to take them a lot more seriously than you currently do.
Not sure why this article claims he predicted the Blackberry. Maybe he predicted the iPhone. Or the Droid. Or just the generic cellphone. Or the walkie-talkie. It's nice that Blackberry is getting some face time but I don't really see the necessity to focus the article on a specific brand rather than the entire product category...
all this article is showing is that Apple is running a bit scared at the moment.
How do you figure this article implies that, in any way. A _FORMER_ employee of the company offers her thoughts and you view that as an entire company running scared? Ok. Sure.
OHA is still a hundred times better than anything Apple has come along with - at least for users.
Yet, based on the market numbers, the users seem to disagree with that assertion. I wonder why... Perhaps it's because engineers don't necessarily know what consumers want. Being the best does not always equate with being desirable.
At least google doesnt send private 'representatives' to ask permission to 'search' people's homes
Why should they search your home? They already know more about you than your mother does. Or have you not been paying attention to the information Google has been gathering at a dramatic rate?
Slashdot Mirror
First they asked nicely. Then they tried to explain that it was a bad patent...
You know this how? You were involved in the talks between the two companies? Cool! Could you offer more insider insight?
Yeah. Thought so.
As a follow up, danerthomas summed it up quite nicely in his comment: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1651720&cid=32204658
Nokia is suing because it got sick of attempting to extort unreasonable licensing fees from Apple for the patents they were using.
Fixed that for you.
I suspect Apple would have paid reasonable licensing fees for those patents but the word on the street is that Nokia asked for more than what Apple felt was reasonable for patent licensing fees when those patents are involved in a standards-related technology. I don't recall the legal term but the short version is that, because those patents are involved in standard technology, Nokia is required to offer the licenses at reasonable rates - in other words, they can't play hardball.
So, sorry, but I don't think Nokia has asked nicely for anything from Apple.
If we keep dumping it into the ocean, we'll run out...
(My sense of "this is a disgusting natural disaster that we need to take seriously and solve now" lost its battle with my sense of "I can be a smartass and make a joke". Sorry...)
It would also get the attention of their shareholders right damn quick as half (yes, HALF) of their consumer base would vanish in an instant. Shareholders love it when you erase half of your market in an instant. But, hey, I'm sure Apple would notice also...
Sorry, but Adobe's reaction to this situation is making one thing absolutely crystal clear - they are shitting their pants right now. They are terrified. They know their major cash cow is in major trouble and they are going to fight with every trick in the book to avoid the inevitable. Because, that is what it is - inevitable. Flash is becoming old news and nothing Adobe can do is going to change that fact. Their tantrum-throwing flailing isn't going to change things. HTML5 is going to push Flash to the side. It may not stick in the long term (I think it will but I won't argue that fact because the industry is always changing) but it will certainly provide the catalyst for people to move on to something else.
I "found" your wallet. It happened to be in your pocket, at the time, but I "found" it. So I'll keep it. Thanks.
Oh. You actually think these phones are being lost and then found? Interesting.
Sorry, but as soon as I see numbers like $51 BILLION in software theft being thrown around, I pretty much immediately ignore everything that is to follow because the number, pure and simple, is bullshit. Can I prove that it's bullshit? Nope. Of course not. And that's the point - nobody can prove that it's bullshit so they can bandy it about with impunity knowing it won't be challenged. But, just as I can't prove that it's bullshit, they can't prove that it's remotely valid. And, therein, is why I ignore reports like this - when numbers can't be challenged to ensure their validity, then the person coming up with the numbers can fluff the numbers to help ensure they prove whatever point they are trying to prove.
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
My sympathy for major media companies being forced to do some work for their money is pretty much non-existent. Welcome to the real world with the rest of us. Enjoy your stay. Get to work.
If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.
Hesitant to use a Linux-based OS? Doubtful. If Chrome OS fails, OEMs might be hesitant to use a Google-developed OS on future products but I don't think it'll impact their view of Linux-based OSes one bit. Either they're open to them or they aren't - the success or failure of Chrome won't change that. What will change is their opinion on Google's offerings. Google should hold off to make sure their foray into the OS market doesn't die before they get a chance to succeed. Unlike the web, you can't release a beta OS into the market and fix it until it works. Consumers who are buying products won't wait around for you to get it right. On the web, sure - knock yourself out. Take a few years to polish the product until you're happy and content to remove the beta tag. On people's computers, either a person is enough of a tinkerer that they'll play with their OS more than Google will or they just want their computer to work and will expect the OS to be finished (as much as can be reasonably expected) from the get-go.
Chrome will have no impact, positive nor negative, upon anyone's opinion of Linux-based OSes. It will only impact people's opinions on Google's OS offerings.
Bye. Can I have your gold?
How do so many people seem to miss the rather glaring issue that Apple has no desire to be a slave to a third party development tool. They've stated as much and it is a very real and serious concern. They offer features to their customers but, if a third party provides developer tools (such as Adobe with Flash) and that third party decides to take their time offering support for those new features or to outright not offer it at all then those features do not make it to the customer. That is a serious concern. In an environment where manufacturers need to provide every advantage possible to stand out from the other offerings on the market, Apple would be hamstringing themselves if they allowed Adobe, rather than themselves, to dictate what features do and do not make it to their customers. Anyone who thinks, even for a second, that this is a trivial part of the equation is not thinking clearly about things.
I'm surprised that InfoWorld completely overlooked this very real and very significant concern. Ah, who'm I kidding?... I'm not surprised at all... sigh...
This is one of many reasons why Bell will never again see a dime of my money. I know they're all corrupt, greedy bastards but Bell seems to take it to extreme levels. Their sense of entitlement has led to them losing massive quantities of customers (beyond what would have been expected by the enforced competition rules). They have failed, utterly, to view their customers as anything of value and it's starting to show. They may be making cost cutting decisions and taking steps to increase revenue but, until they realize that keeping customers satisfied is important, they will continue to lose money and continue to be forced to lay off massive portions of their work force.
Welcome to the end, Bell. It is of your own making. I hope you enjoy the ride.
Ah, how cute. I have an anonymous coward slashdot stalker. How pitiful is your life that you feel the necessity to post these trite little replies to my Apple-related comments?
Please, keep it up - it amuses me. I'll actually feel like I've gone astray should your replies stop gracing my comments.
Ok, that made me laugh! :)
:)
(And, for the record, just putting a CD into the microwave accomplishes the same thing but in a much cooler way - give it a try - awesome light show
Apple deliberately and actively do not sell you software that they don't approve. Apple has not, to my knowledge, taken any action against people jailbreaking their device and running unapproved software (and fixing security holes that lead to jailbreaking does not count as taking action against the process - it's fixing security holes). Further, developers can make web apps that run on the iPhone (see Google Voice or Bejeweled 2 for examples). So, no, Apple does not "deliberately and actively work to prevent you from running unapproved software on the iPhone/iPad" - they simply won't sell apps through their store unless the apps are made to their specifications.
In other words, it may be difficulty for me to install and run Flash on my microwave but, similarly, it is difficult (less so, compared to my efforts with my microwave...) for you to install and run Flash on your iPhone. In both cases, however, it is possible for the end user to use the device however they want, with a bit of difficulty.
I want to run Flash on my microwave - who do I complain to since I can't. I want to use my device in whatever manner I want to, just as you say - I want to run Flash on my microwave.
And, if you can't see the similarity between my far-fetched comment and using Flash on one of Apple's devices, then you aren't looking at the entire picture.
The iPad isn't killing Netbooks, they're doing that all by themselves.
While I think the iPad is unquestionably having an impact on netbook sales, I think your point here is also 100% correct. Netbooks previously were very inexpensive computing options. Lean, mean, cheap machines. Recently, however, the typical drive for bigger numbers and more features has pushed the prices back up to the same level as a full-fledged laptop which forces a consumer to ask "if I'm spending that much money, why am I getting a tiny machine? Why not just buy a laptop?" When the price was in the $150-$250 range, there was a compelling reason to buy a netbook (assuming that's all you needed) - the price. That edge is now gone.
It should be surprising to nobody that netbook sales are declining.
Is it really so hard for people to believe that Flash on a Mac is so poorly implemented as to suck, Flash on mobile devices is poorly suited (due to touch interface) and is a significant memory drain, and that Apple really does not want to be at the mercy of a 3rd party developer when providing features to their customers. Why are people so intent on find some alternate reason when the reasons that have been outlined are actually valid and true? When Flash doesn't suck on a Mac (including iPhone OS); when Flash isn't a memory drain; when Flash is suited to (multi)touch interfaces; when Adobe actually steps up to the plate and takes development within the Mac ecosystem seriously (how long did it take Adobe to release Creative Suite optimized for OSX?...), then, and only then, can we discuss other reasons that Apple may be interested in keeping Flash off their mobile devices. Until then, however, there are some very significant and glaring reasons that Adobe doesn't deserve to have Flash on the iPhone/iPad.
Translation: Adobe, get your shit together. When half your market uses a Mac, you need to take them a lot more seriously than you currently do.
A Blackberry is the only device capable of sending a text message to an operator anywhere in the world? News to me.
Not sure why this article claims he predicted the Blackberry. Maybe he predicted the iPhone. Or the Droid. Or just the generic cellphone. Or the walkie-talkie. It's nice that Blackberry is getting some face time but I don't really see the necessity to focus the article on a specific brand rather than the entire product category...
all this article is showing is that Apple is running a bit scared at the moment.
How do you figure this article implies that, in any way. A _FORMER_ employee of the company offers her thoughts and you view that as an entire company running scared? Ok. Sure.
OHA is still a hundred times better than anything Apple has come along with - at least for users.
Yet, based on the market numbers, the users seem to disagree with that assertion. I wonder why... Perhaps it's because engineers don't necessarily know what consumers want. Being the best does not always equate with being desirable.
At least google doesnt send private 'representatives' to ask permission to 'search' people's homes
Why should they search your home? They already know more about you than your mother does. Or have you not been paying attention to the information Google has been gathering at a dramatic rate?
The story was submitted by Alanis Morrisette, clearly.