Doesn't really matter the iPad is an iKaboom, it just wont work. All the sales, marketing and forum hype (could apple trolls be considered maggots) are not gonna get that platform moving.
At consumer electronic shows about 30 tablets are expected. MS showed one by HP. So if tablets fail it's not just Apple that loses. I'd love one myself, but not Apple's current iPad, the screen is too small for me. I've been thinking of getting a Wacom Bamboo for now.
Sticking an i in something doesn't make it more saleable, the tablet has always had the one big problem, drop factor, it is to large to be effectively hand held, a keyboard is the quickest input device and the tablet has always been this only for pose platform.
Almost all portable devices have that problem. Years ago I brought my laptop with me when I went somewhere and after I got out of the car I slipped on ice. When I got in I took my laptop out and though it only dropped about 2 feet the LCD was cracked. Hoping but not expecting it to be covered I called tech support but they said they didn't cover cracked LCDs. The person suggested I call my car insurance and when I asked how much it would cost to repair the person just said between $200 and $1200, nothing more precise. $1200? That's half what I paid for it.
No, they won't see the inside of the box because Apple doesn't want them there. They provide users a huge amount of functionality, games, apps etc. without paying Apple for the privilege.
That sounds just like my MacBook Pro, almost all of the software I installed on it is FOSS, Free and Open Source. Just like HP, MS, and others Apple got it's money when I bought my Mac. Now I don't have a lot of games installed, OS X installs Chess, but a therapist I was seeing suggested I get some. She suggested they could improve my memory, speed, and other things. Otherwise for an office suite I use the native Mac port of OO.org NeoOffice and for an IDE I use Eclipse. What I am missing is a photo editor like Photoshop, so I plan on installing K/Ubuntu to dualboot and try out Krita before I have to buy Photoshop.
To be fair, Macromedia originally created Flash, not Adobe. Macromedia made a better, more versatile plugin than any of the [also proprietary] competition. Unfortunately, Adobe has now spread their funk to Macromedia. The FTC should never have allowed Adobe to buy their only competitor.
Though I wish Macromedia stayed a separate company, it wasn't Adobe's only competitor. Virtually every market they compeated in there are and were other competitors. Now the one market Adobe has little mass competition with is Photoshop and Macromedia didn't compeat with it.
see the big screen size, and expect to browse the web just like they do on their laptop.
Big screen? While I like the price, to me the screen is too small. I'd rather keep my 17" MBP and get a 12" Cintiq 12WX.
And they're going to be disappointed...
I am now, not at Apple or Adobe but at web developers. Too often I come across a webpage that tells me I need to update my Flash player to the latest version. I have 10,0,42,34 which is the latest version.
Adobe showed Flash 10 running full speed on other devices. Apple most likely wants to lock out Flash because it steals away from their revenue. Apple would no longer get a 30% + $100/yr take on selling them in the Apple App store.
What revenue and sell? Flash is a free download. Right now I have Abode's latest version of Flash Player installed on my MacBook Pro, 10,0,42,34. Apple's own downloads, Quicktime for instance, is free too. Apple even has links to other free downloads. Though Apple sells MS Word and Office as well as it's own office suite, Apple also as a link to NeoOffice, which I use, the native Mac port of Open Office. And though I have XCode installed, it comes free with Macs, I use Eclipse. Though not Eclipse itself Apple has the link for EasyEclipse which is based on Eclipse.
I don't know how many tymes I've run into this on my MBP. I frequently land on pages saying I need the latest Flash player yet when I go to Adobe's test page it says I have the latest player. Right now that's 10.0.42.34 for Linux, OS X, Solaris, and Windows. The only thing I can think of is that these pages test for Windows as well.
Well current OLED screens have much more richer colors than LCD; however, the drawback is they are harder to see in direct light. Also they are more expensive. Maybe in the future when these disadvantages are addressed will Apple switch to an OLED screen.
According to Apple's spec page the iPad uses an LED screen not LCD. The only thing missing is the "O", organic. It's also backlit, and has an ambient light sensor.
No spinning hard drive or fans, and only 64gig memory max.
There would seem to be a lot of room in a device this big to pack in lots of battery. But no.
Ten hours is pretty respectable, I'd rather more storage. Then again with a larger display and tablet, I'd love to get one 17" or bigger, more storage and battery can be put into it. One with something like the Wacom Cintiq 21UX would be kickass bad.
if in a lawsuit a patent is ruled invalid the USPTO should be liable for all legal fees since it was their job to validate it in the first place and their failure has cost people a lot of money.
That could cost even more. When the patent office gets in the habit of turning down patent applications, they will be slapped with lawsuits. A problem with that is that a lot of experts will have to be hired to reviews applications, and those experts will be expensive driving up the cost of filing for patents. The only true solution is to abolish patents.
Patents USED to be used as a means of providing an inventor time to get an invention manufactured.
No. An inventor could do that simply by keeping everything wrapped tightly in secrecy. The purpose of patents was to provide a mechanism for information to be distributed, to promote progress.
Yes. You're both right. Patents are there to encourage disclosure. And the method used is the granting of a limited monopoly to the inventor.
I'm saying that there is research investment even though someone else can patent the process before the researcher does. I didn't read the papers, but I doubt any economist is going to disagree that there is research investment occurring.
I don't disagree. What I argue is that patents do not help progress arts and science. I also argue that if someone else patents an invention before others can the others wasted money doing the research. Without patents though they can market their invention thus the money is not wasted. Now if in order to stay in business a company needs to lower manufacturing costs and or has to make a better product then that helps progress.
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions,
Inventors have first mover advantage and so has at least a little tyme to recoup development costs. Then because of competition, prices should come down, better products will be made, and or improvements will be made. Some economists have studied patents and concluded they have negative impacts.
t is to a) encourage innovation and b) encourage those innovations to be disclosed.
I don't disagree. What I said is that you yourself said software can be decompiled, so others can see how a program works, ie it is disclosed. Yet you say patents are needed for disclosure. Can programs be decompiled or is it impossible to decompile them? If they can be then they can be disclosed.
You're right, (b) is more or less taken care of. Unless of course I decide to use my software to help my business and don't ever tell anyone about it. In that case a software patent serves exactly the same purpose as a regular patent.
Now that brings up something I want to do. I've said a number of tymes right here on slashdot that I want to start a photography business, selling online as well as IRL. Unfortunately I can't afford to buy commercial closed source software, which can cost thousands of dollars. So what I've been thinking of doing is starting with open source software to build a system for the business. Now if I spend much tyme programming I also want to be able to make money by selling the software. I want to be a photographer so I want to sell not support the software. However if I use GPLed software I can not close my source, so I thought I could find and use BSD licensed software. Then, while I could not close the code I used I could close my own code and so prevent others from selling my code until I release it.
Why should I spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to invent something when I can lose the ability to use it because someone else beat me to patenting it?
Well, that's a risk, but I think if the world in general agreed with you, we wouldn't see millions of people and corporations hard at work.
Did you read any of the economic studies I linked to? Some economists disagree with you. Heck, look at open source software, millions of people and corporations work on it every day. Including some that are large and powerful.
Patents are neither the means of production nor property. At most patents tell how something is made. And unlike property what government can grant it can take away too. Patents are granted, there is nothing natural about them. With property on the other hand government can only take if just compensation is given.
Now that only applies to the USA, other nations have other laws. But in the US patents are not rights, in the US government can not grant rights, it can only enforce or deny them.
I think we need to have algorithm patents because releasing software is effectively public disclosure because, with the software, time and motivation, I can disassemble and understand your algorithm.
You say software patents are necessary yet argue they aren't needed. The reason for patents is to encourage public disclosure. However as you say software can be decompiled revealing how they work.
Software patents are a great idea, but the execution is so completely flawed that I'm convinced we'd be better off without them.
Patents, whether hardware or software patents, are bad ideas. Not only do they have negative impacts on economics but they also prevent others from using their own invention. When 2 or more people invent the same thing at the same tyme, with patents only the person who got the patent can use or distribute the invention. Why should I spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to invent something when I can lose the ability to use it because someone else beat me to patenting it?
No, many slashdotters are socialists who want patents abolished so they can plunder the hard work of others without paying anything.
I am a libertarian and I oppose patents. As for other libertarians, there are differing libertarian perspectives on IP. And libertarians are different than socialists, they believe in freedom and small government.
I'm not denying there are many idiotic patents out there, but there are also many valuable, useful and innovative patents that deserve protection.
If you wanted better treatment then why switch to a company that is incredibly sue happy and restrictive? Even the iphone developers have to sign NDA's.
I have never had a problem with that. And though I am not now I used to be a member of the Apple Developer Connection. Going through the iPhone Dev Center I see nothing that says anything about Apple being restrictive and needing to sign NDAs. Searching ADC for NDA I found this: Is content under NDA?
"No. All information presented during the iPhone Tech Talk World Tour is public information and based on the current released versions of iPhone OS 3.0 and the iPhone OS 3.0 SDK."
Now as regards LLVM Open-Source Community Information it says this:
"Reminder: Please do not discuss Xcode information covered under your NDA with Apple in these mailing lists."
Lastly there's LLVM-GCC 4.2 Release Notes which says the same thing.
The only, and I mean ONLY Apple requirement for an NDA deals with XCode. Though I have XCode installed I have yet to use it, I use Eclipse which Apple has a downloadable development tool.
Get off my lawn, young-un,
When I got my first Microsoft PC, Linux hadn't even been invented. Heck, Linus hadn't even enrolled in university. It didn't even come with a GUI.
Either you didn't read what I said or you missed where I said "Before I ever got my Linux PC and Mac I wondered why I ever got a Windows PC instead of a Mac, back when I got my first Windows PC you had to be a wizard to install and use Linux. But SGI Irix [wikipedia.org] PCs were available." Right under the desk I'm sitting at I still have my Windows NT4 Workstation, which is more than 10 years old. Not only that but it's CPU is an older DEC Alpha which was new when I got it.
you seem to bash anything slightly critical of a Mac
Now where have I bashed rational Apple criticism? I myself have repeatedly criticized Apple.
I see no reason to continue this when you make things up.
Laughable. There'll be a greater area lost in shadow behind it than it creates.
That depends on how the buildings are designed. Even if it's true most city land is not farmed so the loss of sunlight would not affect agricultural output. At most it would shade the interior of buildings. What that might do though is decrease cooling costs. During the summer the highest energy usage in many places during the day is cooling. Now if the buildings are designed to use solar gain for heating during the winter that would increase heating costs then, but most buildings are not designed for energy efficiency. Vertical farms on the other hand do take efficiency into consideration when they are designed.
Falcon
Oh and what's your qualification to declare vertical farms are impractical when scientists studying them disagree?
However he, TFA writer Martin Goetz, argues software should be patentable.
He does indeed. The author I was referring to was PoIR in his post on Groklaw.
So does Martin Goetz though. For instance he argues about hardware implementations versus software implementations. Implemented in hardware something would be patentable so if instead it's implemented in software it should also be patentable.
Of course my own bias affects how I see it. Personally I oppose patents just as many economists who've studied the economic effects of patents have concluded.
If the govt were to remove patent protection, the inventors would go back to trade secrets. And if that won't work, they probably won't release any products using that invention -- they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
If they don't release their invention they don't get paid either. They will get paid though if said corporation pays them to invent something. If after the employee invents something but the corporation does not pay then there's such a thing called a court where the worker can sue. Said worker can also say to another company "if you give me a million dollars I will show you how to make X."
If the govt were to remove patent protection, the inventors would go back to trade secrets. And if that won't work, they probably won't release any products using that invention -- they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
Ah, so you're more qualified than the economists who studied patents and concluded they have a negative impact on the economy? So what are your qualifications are and what peer reviewed studies have you done?
they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't really matter the iPad is an iKaboom, it just wont work. All the sales, marketing and forum hype (could apple trolls be considered maggots) are not gonna get that platform moving.
At consumer electronic shows about 30 tablets are expected. MS showed one by HP. So if tablets fail it's not just Apple that loses. I'd love one myself, but not Apple's current iPad, the screen is too small for me. I've been thinking of getting a Wacom Bamboo for now.
Sticking an i in something doesn't make it more saleable, the tablet has always had the one big problem, drop factor, it is to large to be effectively hand held, a keyboard is the quickest input device and the tablet has always been this only for pose platform.
Almost all portable devices have that problem. Years ago I brought my laptop with me when I went somewhere and after I got out of the car I slipped on ice. When I got in I took my laptop out and though it only dropped about 2 feet the LCD was cracked. Hoping but not expecting it to be covered I called tech support but they said they didn't cover cracked LCDs. The person suggested I call my car insurance and when I asked how much it would cost to repair the person just said between $200 and $1200, nothing more precise. $1200? That's half what I paid for it.
And I only had it 3 months.
For now I guess a Bamboo will have to do.
Falcon
No, they won't see the inside of the box because Apple doesn't want them there. They provide users a huge amount of functionality, games, apps etc. without paying Apple for the privilege.
That sounds just like my MacBook Pro, almost all of the software I installed on it is FOSS, Free and Open Source. Just like HP, MS, and others Apple got it's money when I bought my Mac. Now I don't have a lot of games installed, OS X installs Chess, but a therapist I was seeing suggested I get some. She suggested they could improve my memory, speed, and other things. Otherwise for an office suite I use the native Mac port of OO.org NeoOffice and for an IDE I use Eclipse. What I am missing is a photo editor like Photoshop, so I plan on installing K/Ubuntu to dualboot and try out Krita before I have to buy Photoshop.
Falcon
To be fair, Macromedia originally created Flash, not Adobe. Macromedia made a better, more versatile plugin than any of the [also proprietary] competition. Unfortunately, Adobe has now spread their funk to Macromedia. The FTC should never have allowed Adobe to buy their only competitor.
Though I wish Macromedia stayed a separate company, it wasn't Adobe's only competitor. Virtually every market they compeated in there are and were other competitors. Now the one market Adobe has little mass competition with is Photoshop and Macromedia didn't compeat with it.
Falcon
see the big screen size, and expect to browse the web just like they do on their laptop.
Big screen? While I like the price, to me the screen is too small. I'd rather keep my 17" MBP and get a 12" Cintiq 12WX.
And they're going to be disappointed...
I am now, not at Apple or Adobe but at web developers. Too often I come across a webpage that tells me I need to update my Flash player to the latest version. I have 10,0,42,34 which is the latest version.
Falcon
Adobe showed Flash 10 running full speed on other devices. Apple most likely wants to lock out Flash because it steals away from their revenue. Apple would no longer get a 30% + $100/yr take on selling them in the Apple App store.
What revenue and sell? Flash is a free download. Right now I have Abode's latest version of Flash Player installed on my MacBook Pro, 10,0,42,34. Apple's own downloads, Quicktime for instance, is free too. Apple even has links to other free downloads. Though Apple sells MS Word and Office as well as it's own office suite, Apple also as a link to NeoOffice, which I use, the native Mac port of Open Office. And though I have XCode installed, it comes free with Macs, I use Eclipse. Though not Eclipse itself Apple has the link for EasyEclipse which is based on Eclipse.
Falcon
I don't know how many tymes I've run into this on my MBP. I frequently land on pages saying I need the latest Flash player yet when I go to Adobe's test page it says I have the latest player. Right now that's 10.0.42.34 for Linux, OS X, Solaris, and Windows. The only thing I can think of is that these pages test for Windows as well.
Falcon
Well current OLED screens have much more richer colors than LCD; however, the drawback is they are harder to see in direct light. Also they are more expensive. Maybe in the future when these disadvantages are addressed will Apple switch to an OLED screen.
According to Apple's spec page the iPad uses an LED screen not LCD. The only thing missing is the "O", organic. It's also backlit, and has an ambient light sensor.
Falcon
10 hours runtime on a charge.
No spinning hard drive or fans, and only 64gig memory max.
There would seem to be a lot of room in a device this big to pack in lots of battery. But no.
Ten hours is pretty respectable, I'd rather more storage. Then again with a larger display and tablet, I'd love to get one 17" or bigger, more storage and battery can be put into it. One with something like the Wacom Cintiq 21UX would be kickass bad.
Falcon
Allowing patents on ideas most definitely is a bad idea. What next, thought police? Where will the Precogs needed come from?
Falcon
if in a lawsuit a patent is ruled invalid the USPTO should be liable for all legal fees since it was their job to validate it in the first place and their failure has cost people a lot of money.
That could cost even more. When the patent office gets in the habit of turning down patent applications, they will be slapped with lawsuits. A problem with that is that a lot of experts will have to be hired to reviews applications, and those experts will be expensive driving up the cost of filing for patents. The only true solution is to abolish patents.
Falcon
Patents USED to be used as a means of providing an inventor time to get an invention manufactured.
No. An inventor could do that simply by keeping everything wrapped tightly in secrecy. The purpose of patents was to provide a mechanism for information to be distributed, to promote progress.
Yes. You're both right. Patents are there to encourage disclosure. And the method used is the granting of a limited monopoly to the inventor.
Falcon
I'm saying that there is research investment even though someone else can patent the process before the researcher does. I didn't read the papers, but I doubt any economist is going to disagree that there is research investment occurring.
I don't disagree. What I argue is that patents do not help progress arts and science. I also argue that if someone else patents an invention before others can the others wasted money doing the research. Without patents though they can market their invention thus the money is not wasted. Now if in order to stay in business a company needs to lower manufacturing costs and or has to make a better product then that helps progress.
Falcon
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions,
Inventors have first mover advantage and so has at least a little tyme to recoup development costs. Then because of competition, prices should come down, better products will be made, and or improvements will be made. Some economists have studied patents and concluded they have negative impacts.
Falcon
t is to a) encourage innovation and b) encourage those innovations to be disclosed.
I don't disagree. What I said is that you yourself said software can be decompiled, so others can see how a program works, ie it is disclosed. Yet you say patents are needed for disclosure. Can programs be decompiled or is it impossible to decompile them? If they can be then they can be disclosed.
You're right, (b) is more or less taken care of. Unless of course I decide to use my software to help my business and don't ever tell anyone about it. In that case a software patent serves exactly the same purpose as a regular patent.
Now that brings up something I want to do. I've said a number of tymes right here on slashdot that I want to start a photography business, selling online as well as IRL. Unfortunately I can't afford to buy commercial closed source software, which can cost thousands of dollars. So what I've been thinking of doing is starting with open source software to build a system for the business. Now if I spend much tyme programming I also want to be able to make money by selling the software. I want to be a photographer so I want to sell not support the software. However if I use GPLed software I can not close my source, so I thought I could find and use BSD licensed software. Then, while I could not close the code I used I could close my own code and so prevent others from selling my code until I release it.
Falcon
Why should I spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to invent something when I can lose the ability to use it because someone else beat me to patenting it?
Well, that's a risk, but I think if the world in general agreed with you, we wouldn't see millions of people and corporations hard at work.
Did you read any of the economic studies I linked to? Some economists disagree with you. Heck, look at open source software, millions of people and corporations work on it every day. Including some that are large and powerful.
Falcon
Patents are neither the means of production nor property. At most patents tell how something is made. And unlike property what government can grant it can take away too. Patents are granted, there is nothing natural about them. With property on the other hand government can only take if just compensation is given.
Now that only applies to the USA, other nations have other laws. But in the US patents are not rights, in the US government can not grant rights, it can only enforce or deny them.
Falcon
I think we need to have algorithm patents because releasing software is effectively public disclosure because, with the software, time and motivation, I can disassemble and understand your algorithm.
You say software patents are necessary yet argue they aren't needed. The reason for patents is to encourage public disclosure. However as you say software can be decompiled revealing how they work.
Falcon
Quit thinking that "market" is the answer to every question.
I agree but a free market is the answer to the problem of patents. With no government enforced monopoly, ie no patents, there's no problem.
Falcon
Software patents are a great idea, but the execution is so completely flawed that I'm convinced we'd be better off without them.
Patents, whether hardware or software patents, are bad ideas. Not only do they have negative impacts on economics but they also prevent others from using their own invention. When 2 or more people invent the same thing at the same tyme, with patents only the person who got the patent can use or distribute the invention. Why should I spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to invent something when I can lose the ability to use it because someone else beat me to patenting it?
Patents are not needed.
Falcon
No, many slashdotters are socialists who want patents abolished so they can plunder the hard work of others without paying anything.
I am a libertarian and I oppose patents. As for other libertarians, there are differing libertarian perspectives on IP. And libertarians are different than socialists, they believe in freedom and small government.
I'm not denying there are many idiotic patents out there, but there are also many valuable, useful and innovative patents that deserve protection.
Ideas don't deserve protection, only people do.
I thought one of the points of patent law was to create a library of knowledge.
That was the point of patents but they don't work that way today. Today they are used as a device to stop competition.
Falcon
If you wanted better treatment then why switch to a company that is incredibly sue happy and restrictive? Even the iphone developers have to sign NDA's.
I have never had a problem with that. And though I am not now I used to be a member of the Apple Developer Connection. Going through the iPhone Dev Center I see nothing that says anything about Apple being restrictive and needing to sign NDAs. Searching ADC for NDA I found this: Is content under NDA?
"No. All information presented during the iPhone Tech Talk World Tour is public information and based on the current released versions of iPhone OS 3.0 and the iPhone OS 3.0 SDK."
Now as regards LLVM Open-Source Community Information it says this:
"Reminder: Please do not discuss Xcode information covered under your NDA with Apple in these mailing lists."
Lastly there's LLVM-GCC 4.2 Release Notes which says the same thing.
The only, and I mean ONLY Apple requirement for an NDA deals with XCode. Though I have XCode installed I have yet to use it, I use Eclipse which Apple has a downloadable development tool.
Get off my lawn, young-un,
When I got my first Microsoft PC, Linux hadn't even been invented. Heck, Linus hadn't even enrolled in university. It didn't even come with a GUI.
Either you didn't read what I said or you missed where I said "Before I ever got my Linux PC and Mac I wondered why I ever got a Windows PC instead of a Mac, back when I got my first Windows PC you had to be a wizard to install and use Linux. But SGI Irix [wikipedia.org] PCs were available." Right under the desk I'm sitting at I still have my Windows NT4 Workstation, which is more than 10 years old. Not only that but it's CPU is an older DEC Alpha which was new when I got it.
you seem to bash anything slightly critical of a Mac
Now where have I bashed rational Apple criticism? I myself have repeatedly criticized Apple.
I see no reason to continue this when you make things up.
Falcon
Laughable. There'll be a greater area lost in shadow behind it than it creates.
That depends on how the buildings are designed. Even if it's true most city land is not farmed so the loss of sunlight would not affect agricultural output. At most it would shade the interior of buildings. What that might do though is decrease cooling costs. During the summer the highest energy usage in many places during the day is cooling. Now if the buildings are designed to use solar gain for heating during the winter that would increase heating costs then, but most buildings are not designed for energy efficiency. Vertical farms on the other hand do take efficiency into consideration when they are designed.
Falcon
Oh and what's your qualification to declare vertical farms are impractical when scientists studying them disagree?
However he, TFA writer Martin Goetz, argues software should be patentable.
He does indeed. The author I was referring to was PoIR in his post on Groklaw.
So does Martin Goetz though. For instance he argues about hardware implementations versus software implementations. Implemented in hardware something would be patentable so if instead it's implemented in software it should also be patentable.
Of course my own bias affects how I see it. Personally I oppose patents just as many economists who've studied the economic effects of patents have concluded.
Falcon
If the govt were to remove patent protection, the inventors would go back to trade secrets. And if that won't work, they probably won't release any products using that invention -- they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
If they don't release their invention they don't get paid either. They will get paid though if said corporation pays them to invent something. If after the employee invents something but the corporation does not pay then there's such a thing called a court where the worker can sue. Said worker can also say to another company "if you give me a million dollars I will show you how to make X."
If the govt were to remove patent protection, the inventors would go back to trade secrets. And if that won't work, they probably won't release any products using that invention -- they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
Ah, so you're more qualified than the economists who studied patents and concluded they have a negative impact on the economy? So what are your qualifications are and what peer reviewed studies have you done?
they don't want to do free R&D for some big company.
Open source programmers do it all the tyme.
Falcon