Yes, it's more respectful. It's also bad business, especially in the realm of multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations. People that make decisions like that don't run companies like that. In my opinion, he found the respectful middle ground while also making the right business decision for a man in his position.
I'm not saying Steve is a wonderful guy. He's a business man running a business. Please explain to me what you think a business should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents. No, really. Let's be serious for a moment and boil it down to the core issue - what should a company do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents? Now, if you give pretty much the only logical answer that anyone with a hint of business sense could possibly give, then the next question is "why should Apple act differently?" Seriously, why is it evil when Apple does what you would expect any company to do in a similar situation?
Oh yeah, that's right - because it's cool to hate Apple right now. If you want to hate Apple, find a legitimate reason to do so. This is not one of them. This is the CEO of a company on the outs spouting sour grapes. Boo hoo.
And, as someone else commented in another thread, if you think Sun sat on their patent portfolio and twiddled their thumbs idly, you're delusional.
It's business. In fact, it's big business. What do you think Apple should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents?
No, really. What should Apple, a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation with millions of shareholders do when a competitor is possibly infringing their patents?
Since the answer is likely obvious, what is the next step? This is what determines how respectful the process is. Do you just let loose the dogs of law or do you make a phone call and have a stern conversation that makes the situation clear? I'm sure Steve used firm language but _he made a call and gave Sun a heads up._ He could have just let the lawyers go to town and have a field day. Hell, that probably would have earned Apple more money in the long run but he made a phone call.
I find it laughable that anyone would be upset that Apple protects their patents. That's what the patent system is set up for. I know patents are "teh evil" but they are in place to protect companies just like Apple. Patent trolls give patents a bad name, not Apple.
You're blinded by the en vogue hatred of Apple. Find a real reason to hate them. You're making up reasons here.
I love how people are eager to describe it as "Steve threatening to sue" when I see it as Steve showing an industry colleague the respect they deserve and picking up the phone himself to make a personal, direct call to provide advance warning and give the other company the chance to remedy the problem before the lawyers are unleashed. If Steve was so evil, he just would have given the lawyers the go-ahead and the first Sun would have known of the issue is when the legal papers arrived. That didn't happen. Phone calls were made and companies were given the chance to fix the issues before it turned nasty.
Now, I know that flies in the face of the oh-so-cool "Apple is teh evil!" that is all the rage lately but, seriously, can we get some perspective. Steve himself made a call. He didn't pawn it off on an underling. He showed his industry colleague the respect they deserve by making the call himself. He gave advance warning. He let the other company decide whether to take their chances or change their plans. He gave them the power to determine their fate. Sounds pretty respectful to me.
Also, let's be real - what is Apple supposed to do? Sit back and let other companies infringe their patents? Apple isn't a patent troll. They actually spend massive amounts of money on R&D. They produce a broad range of products. They are exactly the sort of company that the patent system is intended to protect. If they don't use their patents to protect their investments then what is the point of patents.
Seriously, I know it's cool to hate on Apple lately but can we at least find reasons that have some vague basis in logic to hate them. Is it really so hard to find reasons to hate Apple that we have to make up reasons?
You guessed wrong. Thanks for playing. No parting gift for you.
And anyone who would defend Harper _regularly_ proroguing parliament - halting the government from actually doing their _jobs_ - in an attempt to save his skin is someone who's opinion I could not give a rat's ass about. Harper knows that he'll be voted out if forced into an election. For him to put the entire parliamentary process on hold just so he can get a couple more months in power is disgusting. Every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, should be outraged by his actions. We pay their salaries. We should demand they do their jobs.
I wish I was European so I could take pride in the fact that someone is finally standing up and calling bullshit on this entire process. I just wish Canada's government would do the same but, so long as Stephen 'Bush-wannabee' Harper is in power (proroguing government in an attempt to remain in power), I don't imagine that will ever happen so I'll have to simply be glad that the Europeans are doing the right thing.
There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.'
Ok, could you please explain to me how that's a "gem". I'd have thought that it would be obvious that Apple would not approve an app that circumvents DRM. Yes, I know, it's your device and you should be able to do what you want with it. Yes, I know that DRM is evil and should be circumvented (and destroyed). Yes, I know all of that but how would anyone in their right mind think that Apple would actually support circumventing DRM, especially their own?
Sorry, I know it's now all cool and whatnot to hate on Apple for everything and anything but I totally do not see anything worth getting riled up about here. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you don't like their developer's agreement, don't develop for them. On the list of "Big Bad Evil Companies", Apple is pretty damn far down the list and, really, if you're going to view this "gem" as a reason to view them as evil then you're just trying to find any and every excuse to hate on them.
We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
Going to lead in the cloud? Given that Google, Microsoft's most-direct competitor, has been "in the cloud" for quite some time, as the expertise to innovate and excel, and has the money to ensure they have everything they need, I find that to be a bold prediction founded in whimsy rather than fact. Methinks Microsoft is about four or five years too late to the cloud computing game. Sure, they have the resources to make up a lot of time but they're competing against a company that has similar resources who already has those four or five years (or more) head start.
That said, it is nice to see Microsoft recognizing that the world has changed and making efforts to change with it.
(And, no, that last part wasn't me being a smartass - I'm actually serious. It's a good thing when major corporations recognize the world has changed and adapt accordingly rather than attempting to hold on to a bygone era.)
I agree, totally, but the core point remains - fail at practicing those skills and you put your job at risk. Is this an issue worth putting your job at risk? I'd guess most people would answer "no."
The question of "can it be done" (to which the answer is obviously "yes" if handled properly) and "should it be done" are different questions. Obviously, both need to be answered before moving on to the "how can it be done" question which is where the OP seemed to jump straight to.
Do your job. Do it well. Advance. Get into a position of influence and authority. Change the policies.
This isn't a war worth waging. You have to ask yourself if this is something worth losing your job over because that is what is possible if you stir things up. Sure, they may not fire you for "recommending non-Microsoft software" but, if you piss off and annoy enough people (or just the wrong person), they'll find a reason to let you go ("not being a team player", for example).
There are things worth stirring the pot over but this just isn't one of them. I agree with your general stance - government agencies being locked into Microsoft strikes me as a very bad idea - but it's not worth the fight. Just do your job and do it well, get promoted into a position of influence, and try to change policy when you're in a position to do so. Until then, pick your battles.
And, if you knew me, you'd find it hysterical that _I_ am suggesting not starting a fight over something...:)
I'm in Canada where tethering is possible but I thought AT&T began offering tethering last... June? July? I could well be wrong... Actually, checking the Apple website, I see that I am wrong - it is not currently available in the US. Ah well, yet another example of AT&T sucking it up...
Anyhow, the point remains - tethering on the iPhone is effortless and easy. Apparently outside the US...
Yes. Brains. McBride is surely doing pretty well, financially-speaking. Investors who bought into SCO probably lost their shirts (and the shirts of their clients) but I think he's doing just fine and appears to be in position to start it all over again.
Sure, he's a scumbag who drove a company into the toilet and pissed away investor's money but I'm sure his bank account will happily report that he's made some smart, if immoral decisions along the way.
Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...
When criminal greed crosses the line to utter malice, it's a sign that someone needs to encounter some righteous justice. Some people just deserve a beating.
The iPad is not a computer. If you want a computer, buy a computer. You obviously want a computer, based on your list. Don't buy an iPad - it's not the product that's right for you. You'd do about as well buying a dishwasher - it's not the product you want. The iPad is, however, the product that a lot of people will want - people who aren't looking for a computer because the iPad is not a computer.
Ok, I'm actually really excited about the iPad (hate that name) and will probably get one (not sure if I'll get a 1st gen or wait for the 2nd) but, even I, an Apple fanboi, am getting sick and tired of hearing "magic", "magical", or any derivation thereof when discussing the iPad. Enough. Please, move on. Please.
I doubt anyone would be able to form a convincing argument that Google dropping support for a decade-old browser is any form of abuse of monopoly. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to _their_ browser - just a newer browser. IE7 or IE8 is fine with them.
Seriously, IE6 is a decade old. In internet years, that's about four or five generations old. It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.
*After all, we know it's only corporations that still use IE6 because nobody in their right mind _chooses_ to remain with IE6 on their personal computers.
As a designer who has been leaping through hoops the past couple weeks getting a website IE6 compliant because the client insists on still using the browser, I say GOOD RIDDANCE!! The sooner we can drive IE6 from the corporate landscape and force people to upgrade to a browser that isn't a decade old and out of date, all the better.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.
It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.
Yes, it's more respectful. It's also bad business, especially in the realm of multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations. People that make decisions like that don't run companies like that. In my opinion, he found the respectful middle ground while also making the right business decision for a man in his position.
I'm not saying Steve is a wonderful guy. He's a business man running a business. Please explain to me what you think a business should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents. No, really. Let's be serious for a moment and boil it down to the core issue - what should a company do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents? Now, if you give pretty much the only logical answer that anyone with a hint of business sense could possibly give, then the next question is "why should Apple act differently?" Seriously, why is it evil when Apple does what you would expect any company to do in a similar situation?
Oh yeah, that's right - because it's cool to hate Apple right now. If you want to hate Apple, find a legitimate reason to do so. This is not one of them. This is the CEO of a company on the outs spouting sour grapes. Boo hoo.
And, as someone else commented in another thread, if you think Sun sat on their patent portfolio and twiddled their thumbs idly, you're delusional.
It's business. In fact, it's big business. What do you think Apple should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents?
No, really. What should Apple, a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation with millions of shareholders do when a competitor is possibly infringing their patents?
Since the answer is likely obvious, what is the next step? This is what determines how respectful the process is. Do you just let loose the dogs of law or do you make a phone call and have a stern conversation that makes the situation clear? I'm sure Steve used firm language but _he made a call and gave Sun a heads up._ He could have just let the lawyers go to town and have a field day. Hell, that probably would have earned Apple more money in the long run but he made a phone call.
I find it laughable that anyone would be upset that Apple protects their patents. That's what the patent system is set up for. I know patents are "teh evil" but they are in place to protect companies just like Apple. Patent trolls give patents a bad name, not Apple.
You're blinded by the en vogue hatred of Apple. Find a real reason to hate them. You're making up reasons here.
I love how people are eager to describe it as "Steve threatening to sue" when I see it as Steve showing an industry colleague the respect they deserve and picking up the phone himself to make a personal, direct call to provide advance warning and give the other company the chance to remedy the problem before the lawyers are unleashed. If Steve was so evil, he just would have given the lawyers the go-ahead and the first Sun would have known of the issue is when the legal papers arrived. That didn't happen. Phone calls were made and companies were given the chance to fix the issues before it turned nasty.
Now, I know that flies in the face of the oh-so-cool "Apple is teh evil!" that is all the rage lately but, seriously, can we get some perspective. Steve himself made a call. He didn't pawn it off on an underling. He showed his industry colleague the respect they deserve by making the call himself. He gave advance warning. He let the other company decide whether to take their chances or change their plans. He gave them the power to determine their fate. Sounds pretty respectful to me.
Also, let's be real - what is Apple supposed to do? Sit back and let other companies infringe their patents? Apple isn't a patent troll. They actually spend massive amounts of money on R&D. They produce a broad range of products. They are exactly the sort of company that the patent system is intended to protect. If they don't use their patents to protect their investments then what is the point of patents.
Seriously, I know it's cool to hate on Apple lately but can we at least find reasons that have some vague basis in logic to hate them. Is it really so hard to find reasons to hate Apple that we have to make up reasons?
You guessed wrong. Thanks for playing. No parting gift for you.
And anyone who would defend Harper _regularly_ proroguing parliament - halting the government from actually doing their _jobs_ - in an attempt to save his skin is someone who's opinion I could not give a rat's ass about. Harper knows that he'll be voted out if forced into an election. For him to put the entire parliamentary process on hold just so he can get a couple more months in power is disgusting. Every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, should be outraged by his actions. We pay their salaries. We should demand they do their jobs.
I wish I was European so I could take pride in the fact that someone is finally standing up and calling bullshit on this entire process. I just wish Canada's government would do the same but, so long as Stephen 'Bush-wannabee' Harper is in power (proroguing government in an attempt to remain in power), I don't imagine that will ever happen so I'll have to simply be glad that the Europeans are doing the right thing.
There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.'
Ok, could you please explain to me how that's a "gem". I'd have thought that it would be obvious that Apple would not approve an app that circumvents DRM. Yes, I know, it's your device and you should be able to do what you want with it. Yes, I know that DRM is evil and should be circumvented (and destroyed). Yes, I know all of that but how would anyone in their right mind think that Apple would actually support circumventing DRM, especially their own?
Sorry, I know it's now all cool and whatnot to hate on Apple for everything and anything but I totally do not see anything worth getting riled up about here. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you don't like their developer's agreement, don't develop for them. On the list of "Big Bad Evil Companies", Apple is pretty damn far down the list and, really, if you're going to view this "gem" as a reason to view them as evil then you're just trying to find any and every excuse to hate on them.
Non-issue. Boring.
I'm sure someone will rush in to point out how a PC is still superior as a gaming rig but, as a Mac owner, I still say NICE!!
It's nice to see other game publishers figure out what Blizzard has known for a very long time.
We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
Going to lead in the cloud? Given that Google, Microsoft's most-direct competitor, has been "in the cloud" for quite some time, as the expertise to innovate and excel, and has the money to ensure they have everything they need, I find that to be a bold prediction founded in whimsy rather than fact. Methinks Microsoft is about four or five years too late to the cloud computing game. Sure, they have the resources to make up a lot of time but they're competing against a company that has similar resources who already has those four or five years (or more) head start.
That said, it is nice to see Microsoft recognizing that the world has changed and making efforts to change with it.
(And, no, that last part wasn't me being a smartass - I'm actually serious. It's a good thing when major corporations recognize the world has changed and adapt accordingly rather than attempting to hold on to a bygone era.)
I agree, totally, but the core point remains - fail at practicing those skills and you put your job at risk. Is this an issue worth putting your job at risk? I'd guess most people would answer "no."
The question of "can it be done" (to which the answer is obviously "yes" if handled properly) and "should it be done" are different questions. Obviously, both need to be answered before moving on to the "how can it be done" question which is where the OP seemed to jump straight to.
Do your job. Do it well. Advance. Get into a position of influence and authority. Change the policies.
:)
This isn't a war worth waging. You have to ask yourself if this is something worth losing your job over because that is what is possible if you stir things up. Sure, they may not fire you for "recommending non-Microsoft software" but, if you piss off and annoy enough people (or just the wrong person), they'll find a reason to let you go ("not being a team player", for example).
There are things worth stirring the pot over but this just isn't one of them. I agree with your general stance - government agencies being locked into Microsoft strikes me as a very bad idea - but it's not worth the fight. Just do your job and do it well, get promoted into a position of influence, and try to change policy when you're in a position to do so. Until then, pick your battles.
And, if you knew me, you'd find it hysterical that _I_ am suggesting not starting a fight over something...
I'm in Canada where tethering is possible but I thought AT&T began offering tethering last ... June? July? I could well be wrong... Actually, checking the Apple website, I see that I am wrong - it is not currently available in the US. Ah well, yet another example of AT&T sucking it up...
Anyhow, the point remains - tethering on the iPhone is effortless and easy. Apparently outside the US...
...on which he basically gives up, for the perfectly decent reason of not wanting to jailbreak his iPhone
Did he buy the special-ed version of the iPhone? The iPhone offers tethering. Easy and effortless. Without jailbreaking.
Not to mention that article was one of the biggest wastes of my time and I'm sitting in Iron Forge waiting for my dungeon queue to pop...
Agreed. Strongly.
Yes. Brains. McBride is surely doing pretty well, financially-speaking. Investors who bought into SCO probably lost their shirts (and the shirts of their clients) but I think he's doing just fine and appears to be in position to start it all over again.
Sure, he's a scumbag who drove a company into the toilet and pissed away investor's money but I'm sure his bank account will happily report that he's made some smart, if immoral decisions along the way.
Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...
They're fighting with Nokia. Check the stats - RIM + Palm don't even come close to Nokia. I don't think Apple is afraid of the big fights, if needed.
Remember this day. This marks the day that you were incredibly, horribly, enormously guilty of hyperbole.
Can't say much apart from that right now, since things are so early and everything is subject to change...
Barely a thing is known yet this makes it to the front page of Slashdot? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, yet somehow I am...
When criminal greed crosses the line to utter malice, it's a sign that someone needs to encounter some righteous justice. Some people just deserve a beating.
Is an iPod Touch a computer? No? Then what's the difference between an iPad and an iPod Touch that makes one a computer and the other not?
And, if you consider an iPod Touch a computer then we'll just have to assume we have different definitions of what a computer is.
Oh, look, someone who doesn't get it.
The iPad is not a computer. If you want a computer, buy a computer. You obviously want a computer, based on your list. Don't buy an iPad - it's not the product that's right for you. You'd do about as well buying a dishwasher - it's not the product you want. The iPad is, however, the product that a lot of people will want - people who aren't looking for a computer because the iPad is not a computer.
Ok, I'm actually really excited about the iPad (hate that name) and will probably get one (not sure if I'll get a 1st gen or wait for the 2nd) but, even I, an Apple fanboi, am getting sick and tired of hearing "magic", "magical", or any derivation thereof when discussing the iPad. Enough. Please, move on. Please.
I doubt anyone would be able to form a convincing argument that Google dropping support for a decade-old browser is any form of abuse of monopoly. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to _their_ browser - just a newer browser. IE7 or IE8 is fine with them.
Seriously, IE6 is a decade old. In internet years, that's about four or five generations old. It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.
*After all, we know it's only corporations that still use IE6 because nobody in their right mind _chooses_ to remain with IE6 on their personal computers.
As a designer who has been leaping through hoops the past couple weeks getting a website IE6 compliant because the client insists on still using the browser, I say GOOD RIDDANCE!! The sooner we can drive IE6 from the corporate landscape and force people to upgrade to a browser that isn't a decade old and out of date, all the better.