It has nothing to do with device sales - it's about usage. It's widely accepted that iOS users surf the web more than Android users. While high end Android devices my get to comparable numbers, you must remember that there is a HUGE range of Android devices from extremely high end devices on the bleeding edge of technology to cheap pieces of crap that nobody in their right mind would want to use to access the internet. iOS devices, on the other hand, are all in the upper range of technology and all are ideally suited to browsing the internet. Thus, iOS users browse the internet significantly more than Android users despite Android devices outselling (as a whole) iOS devices.
Wait, so the "news" got the facts wrong and didn't bother doing even a little bit of research for their stories before "reporting" their "news"? I'm *SHOCKED*. Shocked, I tell ya!
Samsung's success has come largely from making good copies of other people's phones. As we've just seen, they copied the iPhone in numerous examples. We know they've copied the Motorola RAZR with the Samsung Blade (example). We know they copied RIM's Blackberry with the Blackjack (resolution).
Samsung has a history of copying successful phones from other manufacturers. The claim of "the design is obvious" really starts to fall apart when one recognizes that the company has a history of doing this...
But, hey, let's pretend that Samsung is successful because they make great phones. Let's ignore the facts that history has laid out for us.
Because stupid people historically have been easier to control. It helps you to maintain your power.
Exactly. That's why there's an ongoing war with education in (predominantly though not exclusively) the US. Evolution vs creationism, as a prime example. The rising costs of education is another example.
As you say, intentionally and knowingly wanting to dumb-down your society is done for only one reason - to make them easier to control.
People need to remember this war on intelligence isn't only being fought in Iran - it's being fought in western society as well, including (and sometimes specifically) the US.
I believe he's calling bullshit on this comment made in your original post:
I really don't care what the underlying operating system is...
You appear to not care what the underlying OS is so long as it's Windows or Linux. If you truly didn't care then you'd consider using OSX as equally as you've considered moving to Linux or remaining with Windows.
About a year ago, I wrote an article about Steve Jobs' famous quote and, given that I've seen it raised several times in this thread, I feel it's worth reposting because it's just as valid now as it was then. So, here you go.
-----
Of late, with all the Apple vs Google geek drama boiling over, a quote by Steve Jobs is often thrown about in an effort to make Apple/Steve look bad.
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
Now, obviously, this quote is thrown about in an effort to make Apple and/or Steve look bad and imply that they ripped off ideas from others. Well, the problem is the quote is actually a misquote which thus clouds the point, which is rare for someone of Steve's speaking elegance. Most people who know it's a misquote believe he's misquoting Picasso but the truth is he's misquoted TS Elliot. The actual quote is:
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."
Now, when you compare Steve's misquote and TS Elliot's actual quote, you see they actually say basically the same thing but TS Elliot's full quote obviously puts the whole thing into context so the point is understood.
And I agree with it.
I have long believed that there are no more original ideas, just interesting takes on old ideas.
Now, as with Steve's misquote, when expressed that simply, my point can get lost and often has led to people disagreeing with me, strongly. But my point is this - as we grow up, we are exposed to extensive amounts of information that becomes the background noise of our creative processes. As we write, paint, sculpt, compose, and otherwise create, we are influenced, in one way or another, by everything we've seen and heard up until that point. Sometimes the inspiration is heavy and obvious and other times it's subtle and we aren't even aware of it. But we're always influenced by what we've seen up until that point of creation. And good creators put an interesting spin or twist on their inspirations and come up with something that seems and feels new and original. But, at the end of the day, there are no more original ideas, only interesting takes on old ideas.
While many toss around Steve's misquote in the hopes of painting him and Apple in a bad light, they fail to realize that, though he over-simplified a complex issue, he's right. As was TS Elliot before him. Great creators are inspired by what has come before them; they transform and mold and adapt their creation until its something new and wonderful while other creators simply copy without any of the finesse, simply regurgitating what came before.
And, when viewed in the context of Apple, it is clearly relevant. Apple is often touted as being innovative and original by some while others quickly point out that they're just doing what others have done before them. And you know what, both sides are right, which shows that Apple is a "good poet" - they take something and make it into something better, or at least different. They weld the theft into a whole of feeling which is unique. Apple wasn't the first to market with a graphic UI, but they transformed the computer market with Mac OS; Apple wasn't the first to market with an MP3 music player, but they transformed the market with the iPod; Apple wasn't the first to market with a smartphone, but they transformed the market with the iPhone; Apple wasn't the first to market with an ultralight laptop, but they've transformed the market with the Macbook Air; Apple wasn't the first to market with a tablet PC, but they've transformed the market with the iPad. The
I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.
Ironic given just a week ago people on Slashdot were raging that she was bought and paid for by Apple because she wasn't taking any of Samsung's bullshit.
Maybe, and this is just a theory, she's an unbiased judge who isn't interested in taking bullshit from anyone's lawyers...
While I'm Canadian so the Sarah Palin choice was more entertainment than anything else (especially once Tina Fey got involved), I think I can safely say that a punch in the nuts is better than Sarah Palin... How _ANYONE_ seriously considered her for _ANY_ position in politics is a mystery to me. I think I'd rather have a bag of hammers in office than her.
Really? Seriously? You honestly don't know why Apple hasn't been charged with anti-competitive practices? Really?
Um, the answer is simple - they don't have a monopoly in _ANY_ industry in which they operate. At their best, in the MP3 market, they had something in the range of 85%-ish, which is still short of a monopoly. If you don't like their practices, YOU can CHOOSE to pick a different vendor.
Microsoft is forced to provide nag screens for other browsers because they had 95%-ish of the desktop market (giving them a de facto monopoly in the desktop market) and they abused that position to force Internet Explorer upon users. The nag screen is punishment for abusing their monopoly in one market to create success in another market. Apple has not done the same thing because they can't. They do not have anything close to a monopoly position in any market and thus cannot abuse that monopoly. There is competition. There is choice.
I thought all readers of Slashdot already understood that basic concept.
Uh, ok. I admit - I'm an Apple fanboy so I follow Apple news pretty closely but, thus far, nothing secret has been revealed. A large marketing budget for their key products? Uh, duh! A massive and secretive development process behind the iPhone? Seriously, duh! Literally, nothing at all that has been revealed thus far is anything remotely close to a "secret". The closest thing to a secret has been the revelation of specific prototypes but everyone knew there were prototype iPhone designs and most people already had a basic idea of what they looked like - now we have pictures. But the only people who consider any of this a secret are people who don't follow the tech industry at all and anyone who follows Apple surely finds nothing to be a shocking secret thus far.
It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
Normally the typical Slashdot poster demonstrates a lack of understand of the mass market appeal of a product by claiming that a device needs more tricks and do-dads that only a hardcore geek would want but this? Now this demonstrates an entirely different lack of understanding.
Sorry, but the mass market hasn't accepted the iPad because it's expensive. A very small number of rich users may have bought one as a toy because it makes their penis feel larger but when about 85 million people have bought one, you need to recognize and just possibly admit that it's because it's a good product that fulfills the market's wants and needs.
Or you can just think it makes people think they have a larger penis and demonstrate your own particular lack of understanding of what makes a product successful in the mass market...
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her.
Her claim is the book was refused because it mentions Amazon. Go to the iTunes store. Do a search for Amazon. Ignore the results about the geographic region and notice how many other books clearly and obviously mention Amazon. Take particular note, for example, of the book titled "Amazon.com" which, one would assume, is about Amazon and makes mention of the company.
After you do this basic level of investigation, one can only be left to assume that there's either some key part of this story missing and/or she is doing this to generate attention for her book as a marketing ploy (driving people to buy her book on Amazon, most likely).
It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
I agree (with you) - making a fuss does not mean one is just trying to generate publicity but, especially in today's day and age one must be sure to consider the possibility that, yes, it is being done for publicity. It's a marketing tactic that has proven to work, largely because most people aren't willing to do any degree of investigation into whether or not a claim is true. Thus, he (or she) who complains loudest gets eyeballs.
I believe, in this case, the story is either missing a very important key piece of information or, more likely, the author is manipulating the online media into generating hype regarding her book to increase sales.
I am not YesIAmAScript but I will offer the evidence that makes his claim that there are books which make mention of Amazon correct. (Apologies for the copy/paste but this clearly demonstrates the proof you're requesting.)
Here, try this:
Step 1: Go to the iTunes store. Step 2: Search for "Amazon" Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
Step 1: Go to the iTunes store. Step 2: Search for "Amazon" Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
And, clearly, you and your fellow Linux brethren represent an enormous market potential compared to the market that doesn't care about everything you just complained about.
Seriously, for those that constantly wonder why Linux hasn't broken out into the mainstream, this is a perfect example of why - the things that are important to Linux users are basically the complete, total, exact opposite of what is important to the average user of a computer. If you ever want The Year of Linux to actually happen, you need to recognize that what is important to you may not, in fact, be important to the vast majority of users.
Sorry to be blunt but anyone who thinks this is a moron.
The lack of wars involving countries possessing nuclear weapons does not demonstrate that it is a good peacekeeping measure. It demonstrates that it's a good _TEMPORARY_ peacekeeping measure. The problem is, eventually, at some point, someone will push the button. And the button has drastic results that will instantly eradicate any concept of "peace" in an instant as well as plunging the planet into the stone age. Just because a weapon _temporarily_ prevents violence does not mean it will _permanently_ prevent it. We are, in the end, human. We will, eventually, fight. Someone will sling insults and then, eventually, someone will throw a punch. The problem is the punch will wipe out an entire city and be followed by hundreds of other punches.
Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are a peacekeeping tool is an idiot. They are the ultimate ticking time bomb. They are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
"IDC now expects iOS to grab 62.5 percent of the tablet market in 2012, up from 58.2 percent in 2011."
I don't know where you got 73% from, but that's incorrect (to say the least). If you have a different source that confirms your 73%, I'd be curious to see it but all numbers I've seen are close to 60-ish%. And, while that may be a strong majority, it is not a monopoly.
I am not an auto fanatic either so I don't know if they've ever been forced to defend their patent but they do have, for example, a design patent (or, as you call it, a "look-and-feel" patent) on a bumper design which I'm sure some auto people could describe as "patents of questionable validity and worth". Now, if nobody has infringed it, they wouldn't have been forced to enforce it but the fact that they patented it suggests they were willing to fight anyone who attempted to copy them...
Millions of people who jailbreak their devices to install software via Cydia disagree with you.
What's that? You shouldn't have to jailbreak your device to install whatever software you want? Why then do people defend Android with "well, you can root it and install whatever you want on it" when people point out things like the fact that Android devices typically hit the market with out of date OS software and usually never see an update, ever?
Look, neither of them are perfect and both of them have work-arounds that allow users to address their shortcomings. iOS has regular OS updates for three years after a device launches but has a closed ecosystem but the device can be jailbroken to allow one to install whatever they want. Android has an open ecosystem but almost universally lags behind in the OS update category, usually permanently and often by several releases but users can root their device and install whatever OS they want. In both instances, there is a hassle that the user needs to go through and it requires more than the average level of ability with the device but the work-around is there.
So, when you buy one of Apple's pocket-sized computers, you can most certainly install any unapproved software on it. After you jailbreak it.
Am I the only one that wonders why no one is screaming antitrust?
I would imagine you're not alone but you're mistaken. Antitrust would be largely inappropriate. Apple is neither a cartel nor a member of a cartel nor are they in a (near) monopoly position and thus are not in danger of an antitrust investigation.
Apple is simply enforcing their right to defend their patents. Now, you may hate them for doing that; you may hate them for how they're doing it (going "thermonuclear"); you may hate that the patent system allows this; you may hate that they earned patents on things you feel are obvious or frivolous; you may even hate that the patent system exists at all, but none of that is grounds for an antitrust investigation.
They would need to be in a (near) monopoly situation, such as Microsoft in the desktop market, but they aren't. The closest market to which they could be claimed to have a monopoly is the music player market but, even there, they don't have a monopoly position. In the cell phone market, they are doing very well but they not only don't have a monopoly position, they don't even have a position of majority. Alternatively, they would need to be a cartel, which again they are not. If they, _ALONG WITH_ Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and the other big players jointly worked together to prevent a new manufacturer from entering the cell phone market, that would open them up to antitrust charges. Obviously, that's never going to happen given that the major players can't agree on much of anything lately...:)
So, while you may hate what they're doing or hate that they are allowed to do it, that doesn't mean that they are acting anticompetitively. They are simply enforcing their right to defend their patents as the system allows.
Um, the iPhone. You can _absolutely_ make a web app out of HTML, JS, and CSS. In fact, the phone was initially designed with the idea that that was going to be the ONLY way to make apps until Apple changed their minds.
Also, I believe, though am not certain, that the new Windows mobile OS will also allow it (but haven't followed it closely so I could be wrong).
You're right - it isn't a surprise. It isn't newsworthy. Anyone with a vague clue of how the legal process works knew that they were going to appeal. Had they just given up and submitted to the ban, _THAT_ would have been news. This amounts to "legal process continues as expected - nothing to see - move along".
While I know this is about Apple and Samsung, two companies that interest many on Slashdot (may not like, but are at least interested in) and I know this is about a patent dispute which, again, interests people, _THIS_ story about filing an appeal is _NOT_ news.
Seriously, Slashdot was once a much better site and one could actually learn a hell of a lot reading the site (and the comments). It has gone down a lot over the past few years.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with device sales - it's about usage. It's widely accepted that iOS users surf the web more than Android users. While high end Android devices my get to comparable numbers, you must remember that there is a HUGE range of Android devices from extremely high end devices on the bleeding edge of technology to cheap pieces of crap that nobody in their right mind would want to use to access the internet. iOS devices, on the other hand, are all in the upper range of technology and all are ideally suited to browsing the internet. Thus, iOS users browse the internet significantly more than Android users despite Android devices outselling (as a whole) iOS devices.
Wait, so the "news" got the facts wrong and didn't bother doing even a little bit of research for their stories before "reporting" their "news"? I'm *SHOCKED*. Shocked, I tell ya!
Samsung's success has come largely from making good copies of other people's phones. As we've just seen, they copied the iPhone in numerous examples. We know they've copied the Motorola RAZR with the Samsung Blade (example). We know they copied RIM's Blackberry with the Blackjack (resolution).
Samsung has a history of copying successful phones from other manufacturers. The claim of "the design is obvious" really starts to fall apart when one recognizes that the company has a history of doing this...
But, hey, let's pretend that Samsung is successful because they make great phones. Let's ignore the facts that history has laid out for us.
Mad your side lost?
I'm sure most people on Slashdot are going to think the entire jury was filled with idiots and the outcome is a travesty.
Mind you, that probably would have been true regardless of which side won...
Because stupid people historically have been easier to control. It helps you to maintain your power.
Exactly. That's why there's an ongoing war with education in (predominantly though not exclusively) the US. Evolution vs creationism, as a prime example. The rising costs of education is another example.
As you say, intentionally and knowingly wanting to dumb-down your society is done for only one reason - to make them easier to control.
People need to remember this war on intelligence isn't only being fought in Iran - it's being fought in western society as well, including (and sometimes specifically) the US.
I believe he's calling bullshit on this comment made in your original post:
I really don't care what the underlying operating system is...
You appear to not care what the underlying OS is so long as it's Windows or Linux. If you truly didn't care then you'd consider using OSX as equally as you've considered moving to Linux or remaining with Windows.
About a year ago, I wrote an article about Steve Jobs' famous quote and, given that I've seen it raised several times in this thread, I feel it's worth reposting because it's just as valid now as it was then. So, here you go.
-----
Of late, with all the Apple vs Google geek drama boiling over, a quote by Steve Jobs is often thrown about in an effort to make Apple/Steve look bad.
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
Now, obviously, this quote is thrown about in an effort to make Apple and/or Steve look bad and imply that they ripped off ideas from others. Well, the problem is the quote is actually a misquote which thus clouds the point, which is rare for someone of Steve's speaking elegance. Most people who know it's a misquote believe he's misquoting Picasso but the truth is he's misquoted TS Elliot. The actual quote is:
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."
Now, when you compare Steve's misquote and TS Elliot's actual quote, you see they actually say basically the same thing but TS Elliot's full quote obviously puts the whole thing into context so the point is understood.
And I agree with it.
I have long believed that there are no more original ideas, just interesting takes on old ideas.
Now, as with Steve's misquote, when expressed that simply, my point can get lost and often has led to people disagreeing with me, strongly. But my point is this - as we grow up, we are exposed to extensive amounts of information that becomes the background noise of our creative processes. As we write, paint, sculpt, compose, and otherwise create, we are influenced, in one way or another, by everything we've seen and heard up until that point. Sometimes the inspiration is heavy and obvious and other times it's subtle and we aren't even aware of it. But we're always influenced by what we've seen up until that point of creation. And good creators put an interesting spin or twist on their inspirations and come up with something that seems and feels new and original. But, at the end of the day, there are no more original ideas, only interesting takes on old ideas.
While many toss around Steve's misquote in the hopes of painting him and Apple in a bad light, they fail to realize that, though he over-simplified a complex issue, he's right. As was TS Elliot before him. Great creators are inspired by what has come before them; they transform and mold and adapt their creation until its something new and wonderful while other creators simply copy without any of the finesse, simply regurgitating what came before.
And, when viewed in the context of Apple, it is clearly relevant. Apple is often touted as being innovative and original by some while others quickly point out that they're just doing what others have done before them. And you know what, both sides are right, which shows that Apple is a "good poet" - they take something and make it into something better, or at least different. They weld the theft into a whole of feeling which is unique. Apple wasn't the first to market with a graphic UI, but they transformed the computer market with Mac OS; Apple wasn't the first to market with an MP3 music player, but they transformed the market with the iPod; Apple wasn't the first to market with a smartphone, but they transformed the market with the iPhone; Apple wasn't the first to market with an ultralight laptop, but they've transformed the market with the Macbook Air; Apple wasn't the first to market with a tablet PC, but they've transformed the market with the iPad. The
Also applies to himself regarding facing up to the charges against him in Sweeden.
What charges? He's wanted for questioning. No charges have been laid and no arrest warrant issued. They want to ask him questions.
Supposedly...
I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.
Ironic given just a week ago people on Slashdot were raging that she was bought and paid for by Apple because she wasn't taking any of Samsung's bullshit.
Maybe, and this is just a theory, she's an unbiased judge who isn't interested in taking bullshit from anyone's lawyers...
While I'm Canadian so the Sarah Palin choice was more entertainment than anything else (especially once Tina Fey got involved), I think I can safely say that a punch in the nuts is better than Sarah Palin... How _ANYONE_ seriously considered her for _ANY_ position in politics is a mystery to me. I think I'd rather have a bag of hammers in office than her.
I have no idea why this hasn't happened.
Really? Seriously? You honestly don't know why Apple hasn't been charged with anti-competitive practices? Really?
Um, the answer is simple - they don't have a monopoly in _ANY_ industry in which they operate. At their best, in the MP3 market, they had something in the range of 85%-ish, which is still short of a monopoly. If you don't like their practices, YOU can CHOOSE to pick a different vendor.
Microsoft is forced to provide nag screens for other browsers because they had 95%-ish of the desktop market (giving them a de facto monopoly in the desktop market) and they abused that position to force Internet Explorer upon users. The nag screen is punishment for abusing their monopoly in one market to create success in another market. Apple has not done the same thing because they can't. They do not have anything close to a monopoly position in any market and thus cannot abuse that monopoly. There is competition. There is choice.
I thought all readers of Slashdot already understood that basic concept.
Uh, ok. I admit - I'm an Apple fanboy so I follow Apple news pretty closely but, thus far, nothing secret has been revealed. A large marketing budget for their key products? Uh, duh! A massive and secretive development process behind the iPhone? Seriously, duh! Literally, nothing at all that has been revealed thus far is anything remotely close to a "secret". The closest thing to a secret has been the revelation of specific prototypes but everyone knew there were prototype iPhone designs and most people already had a basic idea of what they looked like - now we have pictures. But the only people who consider any of this a secret are people who don't follow the tech industry at all and anyone who follows Apple surely finds nothing to be a shocking secret thus far.
It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
Normally the typical Slashdot poster demonstrates a lack of understand of the mass market appeal of a product by claiming that a device needs more tricks and do-dads that only a hardcore geek would want but this? Now this demonstrates an entirely different lack of understanding.
Sorry, but the mass market hasn't accepted the iPad because it's expensive. A very small number of rich users may have bought one as a toy because it makes their penis feel larger but when about 85 million people have bought one, you need to recognize and just possibly admit that it's because it's a good product that fulfills the market's wants and needs.
Or you can just think it makes people think they have a larger penis and demonstrate your own particular lack of understanding of what makes a product successful in the mass market...
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her.
Her claim is the book was refused because it mentions Amazon. Go to the iTunes store. Do a search for Amazon. Ignore the results about the geographic region and notice how many other books clearly and obviously mention Amazon. Take particular note, for example, of the book titled "Amazon.com" which, one would assume, is about Amazon and makes mention of the company.
After you do this basic level of investigation, one can only be left to assume that there's either some key part of this story missing and/or she is doing this to generate attention for her book as a marketing ploy (driving people to buy her book on Amazon, most likely).
It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
I agree (with you) - making a fuss does not mean one is just trying to generate publicity but, especially in today's day and age one must be sure to consider the possibility that, yes, it is being done for publicity. It's a marketing tactic that has proven to work, largely because most people aren't willing to do any degree of investigation into whether or not a claim is true. Thus, he (or she) who complains loudest gets eyeballs.
I believe, in this case, the story is either missing a very important key piece of information or, more likely, the author is manipulating the online media into generating hype regarding her book to increase sales.
I am not YesIAmAScript but I will offer the evidence that makes his claim that there are books which make mention of Amazon correct. (Apologies for the copy/paste but this clearly demonstrates the proof you're requesting.)
Here, try this:
Step 1: Go to the iTunes store.
Step 2: Search for "Amazon"
Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
Her claim is marketing BS.
If Cory did any basic vetting, then he failed.
Here, try this:
Step 1: Go to the iTunes store.
Step 2: Search for "Amazon"
Step 3: Ignore all titles obviously about the geographic location and take note of how many books obviously include mention of "Amazon" the company.
Protip: One of the books available for sale via iTunes is called "Amazon.com". I could be mistaken, but I think it mentions and discusses Amazon, the company.
Her claim is marketing BS.
I'll stick to my Linux, thanks.
And, clearly, you and your fellow Linux brethren represent an enormous market potential compared to the market that doesn't care about everything you just complained about.
Seriously, for those that constantly wonder why Linux hasn't broken out into the mainstream, this is a perfect example of why - the things that are important to Linux users are basically the complete, total, exact opposite of what is important to the average user of a computer. If you ever want The Year of Linux to actually happen, you need to recognize that what is important to you may not, in fact, be important to the vast majority of users.
Sorry to be blunt but anyone who thinks this is a moron.
The lack of wars involving countries possessing nuclear weapons does not demonstrate that it is a good peacekeeping measure. It demonstrates that it's a good _TEMPORARY_ peacekeeping measure. The problem is, eventually, at some point, someone will push the button. And the button has drastic results that will instantly eradicate any concept of "peace" in an instant as well as plunging the planet into the stone age. Just because a weapon _temporarily_ prevents violence does not mean it will _permanently_ prevent it. We are, in the end, human. We will, eventually, fight. Someone will sling insults and then, eventually, someone will throw a punch. The problem is the punch will wipe out an entire city and be followed by hundreds of other punches.
Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are a peacekeeping tool is an idiot. They are the ultimate ticking time bomb. They are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
To be blunt.
Apple enjoys 73 percent of the Tablet market share...
For the record, no, they don't.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57453525-92/idc-forecast-ipad-up-android-down-blackberry-irrelevant/
"IDC now expects iOS to grab 62.5 percent of the tablet market in 2012, up from 58.2 percent in 2011."
I don't know where you got 73% from, but that's incorrect (to say the least). If you have a different source that confirms your 73%, I'd be curious to see it but all numbers I've seen are close to 60-ish%. And, while that may be a strong majority, it is not a monopoly.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=us%20patent%20d616795&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fpatents%2FUSD616795.pdf&ei=QgjzT83yEK7z6wHGidSqCA&usg=AFQjCNGQb0OHNdLgBVX7yqHS5k9qJ-Z9Gg
I am not an auto fanatic either so I don't know if they've ever been forced to defend their patent but they do have, for example, a design patent (or, as you call it, a "look-and-feel" patent) on a bumper design which I'm sure some auto people could describe as "patents of questionable validity and worth". Now, if nobody has infringed it, they wouldn't have been forced to enforce it but the fact that they patented it suggests they were willing to fight anyone who attempted to copy them...
Millions of people who jailbreak their devices to install software via Cydia disagree with you.
What's that? You shouldn't have to jailbreak your device to install whatever software you want? Why then do people defend Android with "well, you can root it and install whatever you want on it" when people point out things like the fact that Android devices typically hit the market with out of date OS software and usually never see an update, ever?
Look, neither of them are perfect and both of them have work-arounds that allow users to address their shortcomings. iOS has regular OS updates for three years after a device launches but has a closed ecosystem but the device can be jailbroken to allow one to install whatever they want. Android has an open ecosystem but almost universally lags behind in the OS update category, usually permanently and often by several releases but users can root their device and install whatever OS they want. In both instances, there is a hassle that the user needs to go through and it requires more than the average level of ability with the device but the work-around is there.
So, when you buy one of Apple's pocket-sized computers, you can most certainly install any unapproved software on it. After you jailbreak it.
Am I the only one that wonders why no one is screaming antitrust?
I would imagine you're not alone but you're mistaken. Antitrust would be largely inappropriate. Apple is neither a cartel nor a member of a cartel nor are they in a (near) monopoly position and thus are not in danger of an antitrust investigation.
Apple is simply enforcing their right to defend their patents. Now, you may hate them for doing that; you may hate them for how they're doing it (going "thermonuclear"); you may hate that the patent system allows this; you may hate that they earned patents on things you feel are obvious or frivolous; you may even hate that the patent system exists at all, but none of that is grounds for an antitrust investigation.
They would need to be in a (near) monopoly situation, such as Microsoft in the desktop market, but they aren't. The closest market to which they could be claimed to have a monopoly is the music player market but, even there, they don't have a monopoly position. In the cell phone market, they are doing very well but they not only don't have a monopoly position, they don't even have a position of majority. Alternatively, they would need to be a cartel, which again they are not. If they, _ALONG WITH_ Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and the other big players jointly worked together to prevent a new manufacturer from entering the cell phone market, that would open them up to antitrust charges. Obviously, that's never going to happen given that the major players can't agree on much of anything lately... :)
So, while you may hate what they're doing or hate that they are allowed to do it, that doesn't mean that they are acting anticompetitively. They are simply enforcing their right to defend their patents as the system allows.
Um, the iPhone. You can _absolutely_ make a web app out of HTML, JS, and CSS. In fact, the phone was initially designed with the idea that that was going to be the ONLY way to make apps until Apple changed their minds.
Also, I believe, though am not certain, that the new Windows mobile OS will also allow it (but haven't followed it closely so I could be wrong).
It will come as no surprise...
You're right - it isn't a surprise. It isn't newsworthy. Anyone with a vague clue of how the legal process works knew that they were going to appeal. Had they just given up and submitted to the ban, _THAT_ would have been news. This amounts to "legal process continues as expected - nothing to see - move along".
While I know this is about Apple and Samsung, two companies that interest many on Slashdot (may not like, but are at least interested in) and I know this is about a patent dispute which, again, interests people, _THIS_ story about filing an appeal is _NOT_ news.
Seriously, Slashdot was once a much better site and one could actually learn a hell of a lot reading the site (and the comments). It has gone down a lot over the past few years.
Now get off my lawn...