Find me a laptop that's as easy to use, as fast as an iPad (not CPU speed, actual usage speed), and lasts for 10 hours on one charge. For half as much.
If your mp3 players were so much easier to use, why did those companies fail to overtake the market? Marketing did not do it. Ease of use, for the average consumer, did. And almost no geeks seem to understand that - people who think managing folders of music is easier than using iTunes.
Apple forked KHTML in 2002. And made it *much* better. Google had nothing to do with it. But keep dreaming.
My wife is a dietitian. With a tablet, she can email clients, search for updated info, bill clients(freshbooks), manage money(mint), consult with clients & other professionals(facetime), show presentations. In a nutshell, she can do her entire business from a tablet, from where ever she is. There's a LOT of people that can run their entire business from a (decent) tablet.
Because, god forbid, a company protect it's patents.
You're right. It is one very important feature. But it's not a good one for any developer who doesn't want to give away their rights to patents included in derivative works.
I didn't say all patents. But you are giving up rights to your patents that are in that derivative work. And no sane, for-profit company will ever do that.
What it DOES say is that if you put YOUR software patent into YOUR GPL3 code then YOU are agreeing that anyone else can use that software patent under terms compatible with the GPLv3 license.
How in the hell is that not giving up rights to your patents?
And how in the hell is ANY commercial company that protects their patents ever going to agree to that?
Apple wants to do more than just use Samba. They build a front end on to it, but don't want to have to share all their patents with anyone who uses it. So yes, the GPLv3 *IS* the problem.
It doesn't say you can't use it commercially, but it does say you have to give up rights to patents, derivative work, and derivative source code, copyrights, hardware control, etc.
And that is why companies who make money on software will stop using anything relying on GPLv3.
It prevents companies from using GPLv3 software commercially - from a business sense if not a pure licensing sense.
Apple took open source code, made it (a lot) better, and re-relased it. They've never claimed anything else. That's exactly what open source is supposed to be about. Show me one phone using KHTML code, pre-installed.
As for your iPad numbers, Apple sold 15 million of them last year. If they only had 60% of the market, can you tell me, in detail, who sold the other 10 million? If not, this rant is worse than the "Apple used opensource appopriately" whine.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really take 5 paragraphs to say "+1" works, but "-1" won't?
Find me a laptop that's as easy to use, as fast as an iPad (not CPU speed, actual usage speed), and lasts for 10 hours on one charge. For half as much.
I didn't say it was difficult to use. I said the iPod was easier to use for most people.
You're being too specific. You != the market. You have to ask yourself then, why did the iPod win and not the Zune?
If you say marketing, you're just fooling yourself.
If you say more people found it easier to use than the Zune, you're on the right track.
If your mp3 players were so much easier to use, why did those companies fail to overtake the market? Marketing did not do it. Ease of use, for the average consumer, did. And almost no geeks seem to understand that - people who think managing folders of music is easier than using iTunes.
Apple forked KHTML in 2002. And made it *much* better. Google had nothing to do with it. But keep dreaming.
More features usually means less well developed features which means worse.
Just bullet points are NEVER a consideration for better.
Apple takes it's time to develop the next generation of features well. Most/all other companies just don't get that.
iPads have direct print.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/airprint.html
Evernote + optionally a keyboard. She's fine with or without it.
More features != better.
Apple learned that lesson. MS still hasn't.
You do realize that Steve Jobs has missed something like 2 of the last 4 years, right?
Here's a usefulness case for you.
My wife is a dietitian. With a tablet, she can email clients, search for updated info, bill clients(freshbooks), manage money(mint), consult with clients & other professionals(facetime), show presentations. In a nutshell, she can do her entire business from a tablet, from where ever she is. There's a LOT of people that can run their entire business from a (decent) tablet.
And the vast majority of 'drivers' circa 1900 wanted a faster horse.
Of course, they were wrong too.
In the sand...
Because, god forbid, a company protect it's patents.
You're right. It is one very important feature. But it's not a good one for any developer who doesn't want to give away their rights to patents included in derivative works.
I didn't say all patents. But you are giving up rights to your patents that are in that derivative work. And no sane, for-profit company will ever do that.
Regardless if you think it's justified or not.
What it DOES say is that if you put YOUR software patent into YOUR GPL3 code then YOU are agreeing that anyone else can use that software patent under terms compatible with the GPLv3 license.
How in the hell is that not giving up rights to your patents?
And how in the hell is ANY commercial company that protects their patents ever going to agree to that?
Apple wants to do more than just use Samba. They build a front end on to it, but don't want to have to share all their patents with anyone who uses it. So yes, the GPLv3 *IS* the problem.
It doesn't say you can't use it commercially, but it does say you have to give up rights to patents, derivative work, and derivative source code, copyrights, hardware control, etc.
And that is why companies who make money on software will stop using anything relying on GPLv3.
It prevents companies from using GPLv3 software commercially - from a business sense if not a pure licensing sense.
Why don't you send your post to your advisor. See if he lets you graduate.
So, if it actually happened, you'd be ok with the kooky law?
Like Windows, Apple, Sun, Oracle?
Actually, Jesus' father was required to travel for census. As was everyone.
Now, automate it and blast away!
Or Major Dad???
Apple took open source code, made it (a lot) better, and re-relased it. They've never claimed anything else.
That's exactly what open source is supposed to be about.
Show me one phone using KHTML code, pre-installed.
As for your iPad numbers, Apple sold 15 million of them last year. If they only had 60% of the market, can you tell me, in detail, who sold the other 10 million? If not, this rant is worse than the "Apple used opensource appopriately" whine.
Try coming up with a coherent argument. And preferably against what I actually said.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.