No, not "only if they re-wrote then 'clean room' fashion". There's a whole world of ways to write code between a "clean room" and a mechanical derivative. No one came claim ownership of the knowledge in your head.
Apple has made 4 different iPhones and multiple versions of each. All count toward its marketshare, Total marketshare matters to a whole lot of people whereas how many manufacturers and permutations does not. The iPod Touch and iPad are not phones. It's not a contest of who is the greatest, it's a comparison of smartphone marketshare.
If you want to look at trends, consider recent sales numbers. After all, smartphones don't often have long lifetimes. In this comparison Apple gets beaten soundly.
More fanboy FUD. "junkware" and "malware" are not the same, and the iPhone has also had it's malware problems, even though the malware has to be approved and distributed by Apple (which has happened). Apple also has "junkware" on their phones, junkware being anything I don't personally want. And what exactly is "the android model" you refer to, considering you have spent so much time pointing out that there are so many?
You are really hung up on presenting that "single phone" versus "operating system" lie, aren't you?
By today's standards, the original iPhone is a "lower-class junk phone" yet it's included in Apple's overall numbers. Goes both ways. In a few months, there won't be a single article that supports your crusade to claim iOS as number one. It'll still be true in your heart, though. Facts lie according to fanboys.
If it weren't for Apple's earlier time to market and initial sales lead, Android would be already be dominating Apple as the Nielsen 6 month numbers clearly show.
Except you are wrong. The article refers to "Total U.S. Smartphone Subscribers Ages 13+"; it would include any Apple "smartphone" of which there are several. The point is moot, either Android has passed iOS or it is about to. Why you are motivated to lie about this is the interesting question.
So first you are claiming that Apple's marketshare is composed of a single phone (when it's actually 4) and now you are adding in the iPad. What a sad, fanboy hypocrite you are.
From the article you linked to:
"Android OS is still the best-selling smartphone OS among recent acquirers in the last six months, with a 40.8 percent share, compared to 26.9 percent for iOS and 19.2 percent for RIM."
I'm sure the Verizon iPhone is going to reverse that trend.;)
You seem to forget that when the hardware was first created, the company had no intention of offering, or even allowing, a "software store". The hardware most certainly would exist without a software store.
I disagree. People want to explain the iPod's success for some technical reason, but there were non-technical reasons. Apple was a big name in a sea of no-names and had deep pockets and a long term commitment to incremental improvement. Much like IBM succeeded with the PC, Apple succeeded with the iPod. It was, frankly, no more "idiot proof" than other players, people just like to believe it was. Eventually the iPod became the best player technically, but intitially it was far from it.
"yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents."
I'd say a lot more than just your examples are fabricated. Billions of dollars and millions of man-hours? Hehe.
And yes, of course, it's only fair that you can fabricate your argument but everyone else had better provide actual facts.;)
Technically, Apple initially released their device saying that you didn't write apps for it AT ALL. Adding the web app capability itself was a response to pressure. When that wasn't enough, they produced the SDK and app store. Now it's their number one bragging point despite the fact that, left to their own instincts, it wouldn't exist at all.
In Texas it is the law always. Slower traffic keep right. Some douchebags like the OP feel deputized even so far as to advocate for technologies that allow them to screw over other people.
"When someone turns around and says, "Don't worry, I'll keep taking your ten lumps of data for free. Now here are the five hundred I'd like you to keep carrying for free, too. Oh, and by the way, yes I do charge the generator of all those lumps a hell of a lot for my transporting them to and dumping them on your tubes." then it's somewhat understandable to think the relationship's gone a bit one sided."
On the other hand, Comcast has charged a hell of a lot to the consumers of those "five hundred lumps of data" and made the promise to ensure the bandwidth necessary to deliver them. Just like any provider, the fees they charge are for providing the link to the customer AND the bandwidth necessary everywhere else. It is not predicated on the ISP receiving a fee from the other end of the pipe. Comcast's position is a lie.
That's right, it won't change Comcast's operating costs at all. What's happened is that Comcast is no longer getting paid on both ends of the pipe because one of the customers got a better deal elsewhere. In response, Comcast want to send a bill to the competition who took that customer.
"But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free."
Comcast has already been paid for that service by their own customers who are requesting the Netflix traffic. That's where the lie resides.
That's right. The fallacy here is that Comcast calls it "Level 3's traffic". It's not Level 3's traffic, it's their own customers' traffic that they've already been paid for.
Re:Dosn't this cause rather then cure the problem
on
Beer Made Just for Dogs
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You're the one who's got this wrong. From the article:
"But if you’re thinking of trying a swig yourself, be warned. It’s beef-flavored. Yes, that would mean flat, alcohol-free, meat-infused beer."
Read the words, don't read into them. I know, it's tough... Slashbots often find it tricky. But it can be done!
"That is, they don't receive any renumeration for the additional expense - but you do!"
Because they've already been paid for what they've promised.
"This is the base problem with all overcommitted services where the business model is predicated on fractional use of maximum possible resource consumption."
The problem is that Comcast has already been compensated for services that they've never had to deliver. Now that they have to deliver more, they want to be paid more. They're the ones who choose their business model, they're the ones who should suffer from it.
One thing you ignore is that those customers require multiple source and Apple has no intention of offering anything that can be sourced by anyone else. If they did, they'd HAVE to compete on price. That's the point.
Firewire wasn't originally intended to do any of those things, and if it weren't for Sony and their pioneering digital video product, firewire would never have come into existence at all. Firewire owes more to Sony than it does to Apple, who never envisioned it for the uses it eventually became known for.
The author of the IBM article has the same failure of understanding of history as do Apple fanatics. Legacy-free PCs were already envisioned at the time of the iMac introduction, were in development, and some were introduced quickly. USB on the PC was simply held up by Microsoft's lateness with OS support. Apple did nothing regarding USB that wasn't already underway. They simply added visibility through their RDF and pretty colors plus they gave peripheral makers some extra opportunities to differentiate with ugly skins.
Just because IBM said it doesn't make it true. They were too busy failing to remember anything about the USB era.
True, just like for the iMac at that time. There was not a single USB peripheral developed because of Apple's involvement though there were many that got skinned with Apple's pretty colors.
As a person who worked in the industry closely with people who did much of the original USB interoperability and integration development, I can assure you that my statements were not only factual but educated. You won't find anything but religion coming from the Apple fanboys on the USB front.
The iMac was a hail-mary from a company that was nearly backrupt. It was targeted at users who had little to no legacy requirements so loss of legacy ports was minimal (and largely mitigated by dongles). The iMac used USB, a technology wholly developed by Intel, whose interoperability was refined by the industry and whose compatibility was tested largely by the PC industry, and whose progress to market was aided in no way by Apple. It appeared as a first for Apple only because Microsoft was late delivering OS support. It was, in fact, already integrated into many PCs at the time of the iMac introduction. PC makers had to hide that due to Microsoft's failiures.
The only USB market that Apple created with the iMac was for the translucent, multicolored versions of USB devices that had already been developed by the industry. Of course, the USB market hadn't taken off YET at the iMac's introduction. Windows didn't support it then. The iMac contributed little to USB's adoption except in the Apple fanboy's mind.
Now if you want to recognize that Apple lifted an already mature standard developed by Intel and the PC industry, a little sanity is fine by me. It's far from what the OP said that I responded to, however.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not "only if they re-wrote then 'clean room' fashion". There's a whole world of ways to write code between a "clean room" and a mechanical derivative. No one came claim ownership of the knowledge in your head.
Apple has made 4 different iPhones and multiple versions of each. All count toward its marketshare, Total marketshare matters to a whole lot of people whereas how many manufacturers and permutations does not. The iPod Touch and iPad are not phones. It's not a contest of who is the greatest, it's a comparison of smartphone marketshare.
If you want to look at trends, consider recent sales numbers. After all, smartphones don't often have long lifetimes. In this comparison Apple gets beaten soundly.
More fanboy FUD. "junkware" and "malware" are not the same, and the iPhone has also had it's malware problems, even though the malware has to be approved and distributed by Apple (which has happened). Apple also has "junkware" on their phones, junkware being anything I don't personally want. And what exactly is "the android model" you refer to, considering you have spent so much time pointing out that there are so many?
You are really hung up on presenting that "single phone" versus "operating system" lie, aren't you?
By today's standards, the original iPhone is a "lower-class junk phone" yet it's included in Apple's overall numbers. Goes both ways. In a few months, there won't be a single article that supports your crusade to claim iOS as number one. It'll still be true in your heart, though. Facts lie according to fanboys.
If it weren't for Apple's earlier time to market and initial sales lead, Android would be already be dominating Apple as the Nielsen 6 month numbers clearly show.
Except you are wrong. The article refers to "Total U.S. Smartphone Subscribers Ages 13+"; it would include any Apple "smartphone" of which there are several. The point is moot, either Android has passed iOS or it is about to. Why you are motivated to lie about this is the interesting question.
So first you are claiming that Apple's marketshare is composed of a single phone (when it's actually 4) and now you are adding in the iPad. What a sad, fanboy hypocrite you are.
From the article you linked to:
"Android OS is still the best-selling smartphone OS among recent acquirers in the last six months, with a 40.8 percent share, compared to 26.9 percent for iOS and 19.2 percent for RIM."
I'm sure the Verizon iPhone is going to reverse that trend. ;)
You seem to forget that when the hardware was first created, the company had no intention of offering, or even allowing, a "software store". The hardware most certainly would exist without a software store.
I disagree. People want to explain the iPod's success for some technical reason, but there were non-technical reasons. Apple was a big name in a sea of no-names and had deep pockets and a long term commitment to incremental improvement. Much like IBM succeeded with the PC, Apple succeeded with the iPod. It was, frankly, no more "idiot proof" than other players, people just like to believe it was. Eventually the iPod became the best player technically, but intitially it was far from it.
"yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents."
I'd say a lot more than just your examples are fabricated. Billions of dollars and millions of man-hours? Hehe.
And yes, of course, it's only fair that you can fabricate your argument but everyone else had better provide actual facts. ;)
Technically, Apple initially released their device saying that you didn't write apps for it AT ALL. Adding the web app capability itself was a response to pressure. When that wasn't enough, they produced the SDK and app store. Now it's their number one bragging point despite the fact that, left to their own instincts, it wouldn't exist at all.
In Texas it is the law always. Slower traffic keep right. Some douchebags like the OP feel deputized even so far as to advocate for technologies that allow them to screw over other people.
"When someone turns around and says, "Don't worry, I'll keep taking your ten lumps of data for free. Now here are the five hundred I'd like you to keep carrying for free, too. Oh, and by the way, yes I do charge the generator of all those lumps a hell of a lot for my transporting them to and dumping them on your tubes." then it's somewhat understandable to think the relationship's gone a bit one sided."
On the other hand, Comcast has charged a hell of a lot to the consumers of those "five hundred lumps of data" and made the promise to ensure the bandwidth necessary to deliver them. Just like any provider, the fees they charge are for providing the link to the customer AND the bandwidth necessary everywhere else. It is not predicated on the ISP receiving a fee from the other end of the pipe. Comcast's position is a lie.
That's right, it won't change Comcast's operating costs at all. What's happened is that Comcast is no longer getting paid on both ends of the pipe because one of the customers got a better deal elsewhere. In response, Comcast want to send a bill to the competition who took that customer.
"But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free."
Comcast has already been paid for that service by their own customers who are requesting the Netflix traffic. That's where the lie resides.
That's right. The fallacy here is that Comcast calls it "Level 3's traffic". It's not Level 3's traffic, it's their own customers' traffic that they've already been paid for.
You're the one who's got this wrong. From the article:
"But if you’re thinking of trying a swig yourself, be warned. It’s beef-flavored. Yes, that would mean flat, alcohol-free, meat-infused beer."
Read the words, don't read into them. I know, it's tough... Slashbots often find it tricky. But it can be done!
"That is, they don't receive any renumeration for the additional expense - but you do!"
Because they've already been paid for what they've promised.
"This is the base problem with all overcommitted services where the business model is predicated on fractional use of maximum possible resource consumption."
The problem is that Comcast has already been compensated for services that they've never had to deliver. Now that they have to deliver more, they want to be paid more. They're the ones who choose their business model, they're the ones who should suffer from it.
One thing you ignore is that those customers require multiple source and Apple has no intention of offering anything that can be sourced by anyone else. If they did, they'd HAVE to compete on price. That's the point.
Now there's a stupid, self-serving solution for you.
Firewire wasn't originally intended to do any of those things, and if it weren't for Sony and their pioneering digital video product, firewire would never have come into existence at all. Firewire owes more to Sony than it does to Apple, who never envisioned it for the uses it eventually became known for.
The author of the IBM article has the same failure of understanding of history as do Apple fanatics. Legacy-free PCs were already envisioned at the time of the iMac introduction, were in development, and some were introduced quickly. USB on the PC was simply held up by Microsoft's lateness with OS support. Apple did nothing regarding USB that wasn't already underway. They simply added visibility through their RDF and pretty colors plus they gave peripheral makers some extra opportunities to differentiate with ugly skins.
Just because IBM said it doesn't make it true. They were too busy failing to remember anything about the USB era.
Yeah just like ExpressCard, only in that case Macs actually WERE -known- to have them.
True, just like for the iMac at that time. There was not a single USB peripheral developed because of Apple's involvement though there were many that got skinned with Apple's pretty colors.
As a person who worked in the industry closely with people who did much of the original USB interoperability and integration development, I can assure you that my statements were not only factual but educated. You won't find anything but religion coming from the Apple fanboys on the USB front.
The iMac was a hail-mary from a company that was nearly backrupt. It was targeted at users who had little to no legacy requirements so loss of legacy ports was minimal (and largely mitigated by dongles). The iMac used USB, a technology wholly developed by Intel, whose interoperability was refined by the industry and whose compatibility was tested largely by the PC industry, and whose progress to market was aided in no way by Apple. It appeared as a first for Apple only because Microsoft was late delivering OS support. It was, in fact, already integrated into many PCs at the time of the iMac introduction. PC makers had to hide that due to Microsoft's failiures.
The only USB market that Apple created with the iMac was for the translucent, multicolored versions of USB devices that had already been developed by the industry. Of course, the USB market hadn't taken off YET at the iMac's introduction. Windows didn't support it then. The iMac contributed little to USB's adoption except in the Apple fanboy's mind.
Now if you want to recognize that Apple lifted an already mature standard developed by Intel and the PC industry, a little sanity is fine by me. It's far from what the OP said that I responded to, however.