What Republicans? I miss Republicans. The people marching under the GOP banner are a whole different animal than the Republicans I grew up with. I really enjoyed hating Reagan, and I kept up the fight against Bush 1 even though I knew that in many ways, he wasn't so bad. It really got bad with Bush 2--not so much the man, but his ultra-right brain trust--and the election of a (in the eyes of his detractors) mulatto kenyan indonesian communist fascist nazi muslim anti-white racist intellectual just boiled the right-hand fringe to a froth. That "froth" are not, in my eyes, Republicans. They're like the Republican version of a zombie invasion.
The government isn't telling you what bulb you can or can not use; they are only regulating what is manufactured at mass scale. If you truly want to use a 200W incandescent bulb, you're welcome to figure out a means of producing them for yourself.
When large corporations are mass-producing products for consumer purchase that are bad for those consumers--individually or as a group--regulations are key to help ensure that those corporations are not sucking long-term value out of society in exchange for short-term profits. Asbestos may have been a great insulator, for example, but it did not belong in all the locations where its producers pushed its installation in order to ensure it was a profitable product.
I know it's expensive and un-economical to make your own light bulbs. But the only way that light bulb producers can keep selling you incandescent bulbs for 50c a pop is by selling millions of them in order to achieve economies of scale. And if you think about it, spreading the hidden costs among millions of people to keep things affordable for you is a sort of socialism. If you really want to be your own man and stand up to the government, you blow your own glass, spin your own filament, and--what the heck!--power them with your own generator. If you can pull your own oil or coal from your own property, then you'll really be un-touchable!
And to be fair, there's nobody I'd rather have on my side in an emergency. When the virtual house was on fire, he had no problem focusing and getting the problem solved efficiently. It's just the normal day to day stuff that--I'm assuming--couldn't keep his attention.
It's true; they're human. I once worked with a guy who had a total can-do attitude, always saying he could get things done by day's-, week's-, etc's-end, and he was usually off by an order of magnitude since he was making the same promise to everyone.
I finally told him one day, "I'd rather an honest 'no' than a dishonest 'yes' any day of the week." I actually said it to him twice. I didn't bother after that because it just made him upset and didn't change his behavior. Part of that, I'm sure, was that he was a co-founder and thus very secure in his position.
It's a pity, though, as he was amazingly talented in every other way. The work he did was incredible. With the low-level changes he made to our BSDI-based systems, we were able to do with a couple of machines what other hosting companies required dozens of servers for. If only he could have given realistic estimates--even conservative ones, like Scotty--he would have been an A++ partner instead of, depending on the particular case B to C-level.
The last time I was annoyed by HDD sound was when I had a G4 tower running multiple full-size drives and trying to do audio recording. Even then, though, the sound of the fans was worse than the HDDs--especially when I upgraded the video card.
Fast forward to today: I see the HDD light on my Dell e6410 blinking, but I can't hear it over the sound of that damned fan. So again, for me HDDs aren't nearly the issue that the fan is. I wonder if anyone makes a laptop stand that allows you to connect all your devices, keep enough airflow going so that the thing doesn't melt down, but blocks 99% of the sound from getting out...
Application launch time is much improved, too, as are some types of DB-heavy applications. For example, running XCode on an old (2007) MacBook meant excruciatingly slow documentation lookups. I could type "NSString" and have the thing just lock up for 90 seconds until the query returned. Switched to an SSD and the same query is super-fast.
Last, but not least, the latest version of OS X supported by that old MacBook I referred to is Lion, and Apple did something crazy with Lion: even with RAM maxed out, it was, overall, a dog to run. I noticed that with any number of apps running, there was a lot of swapping activity, so again, out with the HDD, in with the SSD, and it runs great. I bought a new machine, but the old one went to my wife, and she'll probably get another 4-5 years out of it.
I don't know if Apple does it on purpose, but to some degree, I think that their iteration process is really, really good marketing. There will always be a set of people--as there are for any product--who need to have the latest and greatest. Some are just fanatics, but some folks--like developers--want to be sure they have all the right equipment for testing their products.
But for everyone else, the solid, reliable, predictable upgrade path means that if you just got a 4s six months or a year ago, you don't feel like your old phone is suddenly useless. Yes, the new one is faster. Yes, it has new features you might want to have. But this one will last you until that next iteration, when you can afford to upgrade under subsidized pricing.
Within my circle, among those with iPhones, I've got just one friend who upgrades with each model. Of the others, I'd say it's mostly 4Ss, a handful of 4s and one or two 3GSs hanging around.
The point is, if each new phone were so radically different that no new software designed for the new devices was likely to work at all on the old ones, that would lead to a lot less customer satisfaction, and in the long run, a lot fewer repeat customers. The jump from model to model is pretty big, but it's not too big to swallow.
If these patents are covered under FRAND, then by definition, the patent owner has to offer similar licensing terms to all comers. They can't charge Apple more just because they think Apple can afford it.
That being said, I don't know the details, so it's entirely possible that the patents in question are not covered under FRAND, in which case Apple may have to pony up or use slower wireless data speeds.
The UDID is not related to encryption on iDevices.
That's not entirely true. If you're a developer (or a tester for a developer), your phone's UDID is used in the certificate signing process when doing ad hoc distribution of an app. If the app is not signed for your device, you can't run it. I know that signing and encryption aren't exactly the same thing, but in this context, they're definitely related.
But yes, for most users, I believe your statement holds true.
I'm totally in agreement with you. The butt of my joke wasn't meant to be Apple or Walter White, but the people who claim that Apple only succeeds by marketing or mind control.
Walter White didn't invent anything! He just packaged up his meth in blue crystals instead of boring white ones and the spinners were all like, duuude, I'm only going to buy your meth!
I'm pretty sure Apple (a) doesn't include Java by default and (b) even once you install it, they make you jump through hoops to allow it in the browser/applet context. I seem to recall them being called evil for making those decisions a while back.
I think my comparison still holds water. Say an average slashdotter earns $90k and goes to small claims court for a $1500 item. That's very similar to Apple pulling down $150B and going to court for $2.5B. Just as Apple has expenses, so does the slashdotter--mortgage or rent, food, hookers, blow, alimony, bail, hush-money, porn--so the court amount may be a fairly significant amount of their discretionary income. I'm not saying it's nothing, but rather that, given the scale of things, it's not as astronomical as it seems.
By the way, while several press outlets have indicated that pinch-to-zoom was part of the lawsuit, apparently Apple's patents around that are very limited, and it was not part of the suit at all.
...the look on a friend's face when he learned a 5.25" floppy could hold 170k of data. ...the look on that same friend's face when I showed him how to use a hole punch to double the amount of data. ...how proud I was of my filing systems, which allowed me to find the right disk for a particular file in just minutes. ...spending extra $$$ on the higher-quality Loran and Elephant brand disks because I wanted to be sure they would last forever
And my favorite memory is...
...keeping a binder full of my floppies for several years after my C64 was stolen, meeting someone who was still using a C64, and playing the game I had half-written on her system one last time before saying goodbye to the memories.
Sometimes, patents work the way they should however. My experience with patents is extremely limited, but contain, I think, a worthwhile anecdote in the argument about the patent system.
My father is an electrical engineer who found himself in a career in nuclear physics after getting his engineering degree. If you or someone you know has gotten a PET or CAT scan, odds are more than even that the work was done on one of the many machines he's had a hand in designing, building and installing in hospitals, universities and other research facilities around the world.
Most of that work was done under the umbrella of medium to large corporations, but since going it solo, he's come up with a few patents around radiation detectors, and he makes and sells his devices as a part of his consultancy. And here's the thing: he has a client base which includes companies like General Electric which, if not for the patents, could totally copy his devices and build them for distribution, undercutting and outselling him to his own client base. He's one guy in a heavily-shielded workshop, and patents allow him a significant level of predictable business which would otherwise be crushed.
Unfortunately, many patents are used by big corporations against big corporations, or worse, against small competitors. Or even worse, by trolls against everyone. But at the heart of the system is an idealistic hope for a leveling of the playing field which--if only sometimes--can act in the interests of small business people who otherwise would have no chance of making an honest living from an honest invention.
Once upon a time, the study of the heavens and the gods was a pursuit in understanding our world and our place in it. It was a humble pursuit by humble people who only wanted to learn more about that which they did not understand.
Now it seems that, at least for the mass audience, religion has become a yoke, a system of limiting knowledge. And sadly, it seems to be for the purpose of maintaining societal hierarchies. Keep them dumb, that'll keep them poor. If they're poor, they'll be hungry. If they're hungry, they'll do what you say.
Of far more concern are how blindly the utility patents were upheld. An animated spring simulation, that doesn't even include code, is not worth giving Apple 20 years of protection.
I agree, conceptually, but the spring and other interface elements which bring a natural feel into the touch UI may not be as simple as they look. Remember, if something's never been done before in that context, it's likely that it took a lot more than just an idea ("Hey, let's show a user they're at the end of a page by having it pull out and spring back!") and hacking together some code ("Look what I just did in 15 minutes!"). It's likely that they did a lot of testing to see what the ideal "spring weights" were for all sorts of different contexts within the OS and applications.
Once they do it, it seems obvious and it's probably quite easy to copy (at least poorly), but let's say that they spent the equivalent of five person-years on it, maybe they should get a full 20 years of protection. But if they only spent one person-year on it, maybe that protection should extend only five years.
I think that's the problem with some of these software patents. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, it seems to me that some of the patents we're seeing get more merit for being first than they do for being any sort of challenge to implement. Going back to everyone's favorite punching bag--one-click purchasing--a lot of them seem to be overly general and far reaching, but it's my feeling that if a company can document that they were first to do something non-obvious, AND that they spent significant development resources (backing up the concept that it was non-obvious, and not just a hack), they should be entitled to some level of protection.
Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that everyone should be able to copy it, as Google indicated with a recent statement.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but there may be another perspective to it. $2.5B (the original amount of the suit) seems like a lot of money, enough to qualify someone as "sue happy". But based on the volumes of money that the industry in question moves around, it's not quite so big. Apple is pulling down tens of billions of dollars per quarter. Let's say they end FY2012 taking in $150B; a 2.5B lawsuit for them is like the equivalent of your average slashdotter taking someone to small claims court.
If Gil hadn't given up on classic macos, Apple wouldn't be here today.
That's a very generous way to look at his tenure; having read this just now marks the first time I've ever thought of Amelio as anything but a complete failure in Apple. So the question is, then, did he choose NeXT and Jobs, or did the board do it, or both? I seem to remember being excited that BeOS might become the next OS for the Mac; my impression was that Gil was shooting for that to happen, and that it was a coup that brought home the prodigal son. I can't cite any evidence, though, so I may be wrong. Do you happen to know or have a source?
Just pulling from memory--which I admit may be faulty--my recollection of the core accomplishments of the various dark-years CEOs was:
John Sculley - Fired Jobs, released the Newton.
Michael Spindler - Licensed the OS, began the proliferation of product lines, transitioned to PowerPC.
Gil Amelio - Increased the array of product variations beyond anyone's capability to comprehend, ditched Taligent et al for NeXT (per your comment) and re-hired Jobs.
Steve Jobs - (now we're out of the dark years) Killed licensing, simplified the product line, made computers into consumer electronics with the colorful iMac et al, transitioned to OS X, transitioned to Intel, introduced the iPod, introduced iOS mobile devices, hired Tim Cook who revolutionized their supply chain and production management and became the new CEO.
And Tim seems to be doing a good job; we'll see what his signature move is as a CEO at some point.
Pinch- and tap-to-zoom may indeed be the most intuitive-feeling options, but they're not the only ones possible. Maybe three fingers dragging up to zoom in, dragging down to zoom out? That's with 5 seconds' thought. Here'a another 5 seconds: two fingers moved in a clockwise circle zooms in, counter-clockwise zooms out.
Forget about multi-touch, what about using the camera or some other technology like a mini-version of the Kinekt for in-air gestures? Voice control? Sensor on the head for mind control?
The point is, there is more than one way to skin this cat. Whether or not the patents are valid is a reasonable question to argue, but to suggest that other device makers have no choice but to license or violate their patents is, I believe, quite silly.
Slashdot Mirror
What Republicans? I miss Republicans. The people marching under the GOP banner are a whole different animal than the Republicans I grew up with. I really enjoyed hating Reagan, and I kept up the fight against Bush 1 even though I knew that in many ways, he wasn't so bad. It really got bad with Bush 2--not so much the man, but his ultra-right brain trust--and the election of a (in the eyes of his detractors) mulatto kenyan indonesian communist fascist nazi muslim anti-white racist intellectual just boiled the right-hand fringe to a froth. That "froth" are not, in my eyes, Republicans. They're like the Republican version of a zombie invasion.
The government isn't telling you what bulb you can or can not use; they are only regulating what is manufactured at mass scale. If you truly want to use a 200W incandescent bulb, you're welcome to figure out a means of producing them for yourself.
When large corporations are mass-producing products for consumer purchase that are bad for those consumers--individually or as a group--regulations are key to help ensure that those corporations are not sucking long-term value out of society in exchange for short-term profits. Asbestos may have been a great insulator, for example, but it did not belong in all the locations where its producers pushed its installation in order to ensure it was a profitable product.
I know it's expensive and un-economical to make your own light bulbs. But the only way that light bulb producers can keep selling you incandescent bulbs for 50c a pop is by selling millions of them in order to achieve economies of scale. And if you think about it, spreading the hidden costs among millions of people to keep things affordable for you is a sort of socialism. If you really want to be your own man and stand up to the government, you blow your own glass, spin your own filament, and--what the heck!--power them with your own generator. If you can pull your own oil or coal from your own property, then you'll really be un-touchable!
And to be fair, there's nobody I'd rather have on my side in an emergency. When the virtual house was on fire, he had no problem focusing and getting the problem solved efficiently. It's just the normal day to day stuff that--I'm assuming--couldn't keep his attention.
It's true; they're human. I once worked with a guy who had a total can-do attitude, always saying he could get things done by day's-, week's-, etc's-end, and he was usually off by an order of magnitude since he was making the same promise to everyone.
I finally told him one day, "I'd rather an honest 'no' than a dishonest 'yes' any day of the week." I actually said it to him twice. I didn't bother after that because it just made him upset and didn't change his behavior. Part of that, I'm sure, was that he was a co-founder and thus very secure in his position.
It's a pity, though, as he was amazingly talented in every other way. The work he did was incredible. With the low-level changes he made to our BSDI-based systems, we were able to do with a couple of machines what other hosting companies required dozens of servers for. If only he could have given realistic estimates--even conservative ones, like Scotty--he would have been an A++ partner instead of, depending on the particular case B to C-level.
The last time I was annoyed by HDD sound was when I had a G4 tower running multiple full-size drives and trying to do audio recording. Even then, though, the sound of the fans was worse than the HDDs--especially when I upgraded the video card.
Fast forward to today: I see the HDD light on my Dell e6410 blinking, but I can't hear it over the sound of that damned fan. So again, for me HDDs aren't nearly the issue that the fan is. I wonder if anyone makes a laptop stand that allows you to connect all your devices, keep enough airflow going so that the thing doesn't melt down, but blocks 99% of the sound from getting out...
Application launch time is much improved, too, as are some types of DB-heavy applications. For example, running XCode on an old (2007) MacBook meant excruciatingly slow documentation lookups. I could type "NSString" and have the thing just lock up for 90 seconds until the query returned. Switched to an SSD and the same query is super-fast.
Last, but not least, the latest version of OS X supported by that old MacBook I referred to is Lion, and Apple did something crazy with Lion: even with RAM maxed out, it was, overall, a dog to run. I noticed that with any number of apps running, there was a lot of swapping activity, so again, out with the HDD, in with the SSD, and it runs great. I bought a new machine, but the old one went to my wife, and she'll probably get another 4-5 years out of it.
I don't know if Apple does it on purpose, but to some degree, I think that their iteration process is really, really good marketing. There will always be a set of people--as there are for any product--who need to have the latest and greatest. Some are just fanatics, but some folks--like developers--want to be sure they have all the right equipment for testing their products.
But for everyone else, the solid, reliable, predictable upgrade path means that if you just got a 4s six months or a year ago, you don't feel like your old phone is suddenly useless. Yes, the new one is faster. Yes, it has new features you might want to have. But this one will last you until that next iteration, when you can afford to upgrade under subsidized pricing.
Within my circle, among those with iPhones, I've got just one friend who upgrades with each model. Of the others, I'd say it's mostly 4Ss, a handful of 4s and one or two 3GSs hanging around.
The point is, if each new phone were so radically different that no new software designed for the new devices was likely to work at all on the old ones, that would lead to a lot less customer satisfaction, and in the long run, a lot fewer repeat customers. The jump from model to model is pretty big, but it's not too big to swallow.
If these patents are covered under FRAND, then by definition, the patent owner has to offer similar licensing terms to all comers. They can't charge Apple more just because they think Apple can afford it.
That being said, I don't know the details, so it's entirely possible that the patents in question are not covered under FRAND, in which case Apple may have to pony up or use slower wireless data speeds.
The UDID is not related to encryption on iDevices.
That's not entirely true. If you're a developer (or a tester for a developer), your phone's UDID is used in the certificate signing process when doing ad hoc distribution of an app. If the app is not signed for your device, you can't run it. I know that signing and encryption aren't exactly the same thing, but in this context, they're definitely related.
But yes, for most users, I believe your statement holds true.
I'm totally in agreement with you. The butt of my joke wasn't meant to be Apple or Walter White, but the people who claim that Apple only succeeds by marketing or mind control.
Walter White didn't invent anything! He just packaged up his meth in blue crystals instead of boring white ones and the spinners were all like, duuude, I'm only going to buy your meth!
I was thinking a twitter flashmob in this context could have interesting repercussions..
Well, you're right, except that the modern, non-vulnerable version was apparently vulnerable!
I'm pretty sure Apple (a) doesn't include Java by default and (b) even once you install it, they make you jump through hoops to allow it in the browser/applet context. I seem to recall them being called evil for making those decisions a while back.
I think my comparison still holds water. Say an average slashdotter earns $90k and goes to small claims court for a $1500 item. That's very similar to Apple pulling down $150B and going to court for $2.5B. Just as Apple has expenses, so does the slashdotter--mortgage or rent, food, hookers, blow, alimony, bail, hush-money, porn--so the court amount may be a fairly significant amount of their discretionary income. I'm not saying it's nothing, but rather that, given the scale of things, it's not as astronomical as it seems.
By the way, while several press outlets have indicated that pinch-to-zoom was part of the lawsuit, apparently Apple's patents around that are very limited, and it was not part of the suit at all.
And my favorite memory is...
Sometimes, patents work the way they should however. My experience with patents is extremely limited, but contain, I think, a worthwhile anecdote in the argument about the patent system.
My father is an electrical engineer who found himself in a career in nuclear physics after getting his engineering degree. If you or someone you know has gotten a PET or CAT scan, odds are more than even that the work was done on one of the many machines he's had a hand in designing, building and installing in hospitals, universities and other research facilities around the world.
Most of that work was done under the umbrella of medium to large corporations, but since going it solo, he's come up with a few patents around radiation detectors, and he makes and sells his devices as a part of his consultancy. And here's the thing: he has a client base which includes companies like General Electric which, if not for the patents, could totally copy his devices and build them for distribution, undercutting and outselling him to his own client base. He's one guy in a heavily-shielded workshop, and patents allow him a significant level of predictable business which would otherwise be crushed.
Unfortunately, many patents are used by big corporations against big corporations, or worse, against small competitors. Or even worse, by trolls against everyone. But at the heart of the system is an idealistic hope for a leveling of the playing field which--if only sometimes--can act in the interests of small business people who otherwise would have no chance of making an honest living from an honest invention.
Once upon a time, the study of the heavens and the gods was a pursuit in understanding our world and our place in it. It was a humble pursuit by humble people who only wanted to learn more about that which they did not understand.
Now it seems that, at least for the mass audience, religion has become a yoke, a system of limiting knowledge. And sadly, it seems to be for the purpose of maintaining societal hierarchies. Keep them dumb, that'll keep them poor. If they're poor, they'll be hungry. If they're hungry, they'll do what you say.
Of far more concern are how blindly the utility patents were upheld. An animated spring simulation, that doesn't even include code, is not worth giving Apple 20 years of protection.
I agree, conceptually, but the spring and other interface elements which bring a natural feel into the touch UI may not be as simple as they look. Remember, if something's never been done before in that context, it's likely that it took a lot more than just an idea ("Hey, let's show a user they're at the end of a page by having it pull out and spring back!") and hacking together some code ("Look what I just did in 15 minutes!"). It's likely that they did a lot of testing to see what the ideal "spring weights" were for all sorts of different contexts within the OS and applications.
Once they do it, it seems obvious and it's probably quite easy to copy (at least poorly), but let's say that they spent the equivalent of five person-years on it, maybe they should get a full 20 years of protection. But if they only spent one person-year on it, maybe that protection should extend only five years.
I think that's the problem with some of these software patents. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, it seems to me that some of the patents we're seeing get more merit for being first than they do for being any sort of challenge to implement. Going back to everyone's favorite punching bag--one-click purchasing--a lot of them seem to be overly general and far reaching, but it's my feeling that if a company can document that they were first to do something non-obvious, AND that they spent significant development resources (backing up the concept that it was non-obvious, and not just a hack), they should be entitled to some level of protection.
Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that everyone should be able to copy it, as Google indicated with a recent statement.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but there may be another perspective to it. $2.5B (the original amount of the suit) seems like a lot of money, enough to qualify someone as "sue happy". But based on the volumes of money that the industry in question moves around, it's not quite so big. Apple is pulling down tens of billions of dollars per quarter. Let's say they end FY2012 taking in $150B; a 2.5B lawsuit for them is like the equivalent of your average slashdotter taking someone to small claims court.
If Gil hadn't given up on classic macos, Apple wouldn't be here today.
That's a very generous way to look at his tenure; having read this just now marks the first time I've ever thought of Amelio as anything but a complete failure in Apple. So the question is, then, did he choose NeXT and Jobs, or did the board do it, or both? I seem to remember being excited that BeOS might become the next OS for the Mac; my impression was that Gil was shooting for that to happen, and that it was a coup that brought home the prodigal son. I can't cite any evidence, though, so I may be wrong. Do you happen to know or have a source?
Just pulling from memory--which I admit may be faulty--my recollection of the core accomplishments of the various dark-years CEOs was:
And Tim seems to be doing a good job; we'll see what his signature move is as a CEO at some point.
...says the AC in a typically un-constructive post.
Pinch- and tap-to-zoom may indeed be the most intuitive-feeling options, but they're not the only ones possible. Maybe three fingers dragging up to zoom in, dragging down to zoom out? That's with 5 seconds' thought. Here'a another 5 seconds: two fingers moved in a clockwise circle zooms in, counter-clockwise zooms out.
Forget about multi-touch, what about using the camera or some other technology like a mini-version of the Kinekt for in-air gestures? Voice control? Sensor on the head for mind control?
The point is, there is more than one way to skin this cat. Whether or not the patents are valid is a reasonable question to argue, but to suggest that other device makers have no choice but to license or violate their patents is, I believe, quite silly.
I expect this post will be full of the normal vitriol from barely-informed people.