That's such a stupid take. I can understand hating Apple and their litigiousness, but you're letting hatred completely cloud your vision--you are in a Reality Distortion Field of your own.
Putting aside their insane profit share, margins, market capitalization, and other numbers, Apple CREATED the modern touch screen smartphone market. It wasn't there until iPhone. "Smartphone" users were using Treos and Blackberrys before 2007. I'll wait for you to finish talking about the LG Prada now... OK, so the passing physical resemblance there would only deceive you until you used each device. Apple shipped with a ground-up multi-touch-based OS. There were no scroll bars or other KVM-paradigm derivative leftovers--they re-thought the paradigm, innovated, and licensed technologies to bring a new HCI/UX vision to the market. Integrating threads that pre-existed and packaging them in a way that represented something new, and established a market does count as innovation, whatever your prejudices against Apple are. And even though others have now taken this paradigm and either ripped it off (Samsung) or innovated in new directions (Palm webOS, Microsoft Metro), Apple is still "competing" just fine, obliterating the competition in terms of profit share while continuing to maintain premium margins. Haters gonna hate, but they CAN and DO compete.
They didn't invent the MP3 player either, but no one ever figured out how to "compete" with them there, and it wasn't due to lawsuits, it was because Apple was better at creating and marketing a solution
We are most certainly NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic, and we have always gone against public will when it was wrong (Jim Crow might still be in effect in the South if antidemocratic actions were strictly verboten).
ORLY? Given how prepared Apple's counsel has been in this case (particularly versus the Samsung clusterfuck) I will take them at their word when they say they timed out the witnesses. 10-12 minutes per witness is reasonable if they have specific nuggets of testimony to extract. The objections? Not so much.
I know this is tu quoque, but Windows 7 is far worse on that front. You can only have ONE wallpaper and it duplicates on each monitor even if they are different resolutions. And simple image files don't preview in Explorer. It's 2012. WTF. OS X has some great hidden tricks if you learn a few keyboard shortcuts, but Finder is the biggest issue. So I use PathFinder (http://cocoatech.com/pathfinder/), which is awesome.
Why are we not hearing from WebM and Google anymore? Is the industry going to fall in like with h.264 the same way they have with other royalty-encumbered standards?
Let's see... SAMs shouldn't have a hard time shooting a target of this size down. I imagine it would be difficult to move this thing out of the way of a storm as well. They should be looking at arrays of weather-balloon type devices or something. Perhaps just use satellites? This seems bald stupidity.
I don't get the third paragraph. Ever since iOS finally cut the docking cable you don't need a PC to get going, just iCloud credentials and a network connection. It's cool that you can download BitTorrent clients but neither platform has enough storage to go nuts with BT, especially the tiny storage options on N7.
There goes that old "patent litigation stifles innovation" cliche. You always hear this assertion and never an explanation for it. (I say this as someone who isn't even sure there should BE patents, BTW). Copying someone is the OPPOSITE of innovation. If Apple asserts patents for UI/UX elements successfully against Samsung, they will have to INNOVATE a new way to provide a good UX. If you look objectively at the document where Samsung analyzed the iPhone competitively you have to admit it looks like they were slavishly trying to copy the UI/UX. Imagine if you invented something and then someone took some of your ideas and created a copy of it. How would you react? Wouldn't you be pissed someone copied your ideas and is now making money off them without licensing them? Apple's sue-happy but they've looked pretty good to me in this case so far, and Samsung's council has been an embarrassment. I do think they are within their rights on some of these suits, including this one, as IP law stands today.
Yeah... and BMW is about to go out of business if they don't expand from their single-digit market share. I think they'll be able to sustain a niche market with their margins, they always have.
I've presented PPT and PPTX on mine trivially on a projector. It's used prevalently in business. It can be a toy, but it can be more too. Same could be said of Nexus 7.
As the post says, that quote by Ballmer is telling: "'Things work better when hardware and software are considered together,' he said. 'We control it all, we design it all, and we manufacture it all ourselves.'" This is a COMPLETE reversal of everything Microsoft has always been about (excepting I guess the Xbox), and if Microsoft's actions didn't deliver the "FU" to OEMs, then this explicit statement did. He seems to be saying "Apple was right all along," or at least "Apple is right when it comes to devices." This is a huge statement. The idea that a hardware manufacturer and vertical integration have won out in a world where software margins are so huge and hardware margins so thin is a sea change in the world of technology. Perhaps MS saw the death spiral of diminishing margins, the proliferation of a buyer-confusing myriad of options, and the continued failure to make iPad-competitive devices in the PC industry and decided angering OEM partners really didn't matter at this point. They saw IBM spin off Lenovo, and HP flirt with spinning off their PC division, and spinning off webOS. They saw that the value of these OEMs was diminishing enough to where they could threaten those revenue streams by offering their own hardware.
Despite being primarily an Apple user, I don't feel comfortable with this increasingly integrated model. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft can make the transition. It will be critical to be able to command greater margins than the OEMs can on the hardware, though Microsoft clearly will subsidize a platform in order to build out a network (as they did with Xbox). They obviously have the advantage of not having to pay licenses, so that will help. They will probably sell a lot of these--they have an inherent advantage. With a quality MS option, why purchase from a third party who probably can't compete on price anyway? This will hopefully mean purchasing power for parts, again helping margins.
All you have to do is look at Google's record of bullying, improperly exercising their search monopoly by manipulating results, or ripping off the Yelp!s, the Groupons, and the Skyhooks of the world to see that they are not "civil" in the least.
Are you joking or have you just not been paying attention? Don't you remember that they doctored search results to push their services? Don't you think that exercising a monopoly in one area (search) to attack other markets (social network, business ratings, group discounting, etc) is anticompetitive and antitrust? Remember when Yelp! got popular, and Google made Places, duplicated some of Yelp!'s data, and then pushed Yelp! results down below Places results? What about their strong-arming handset manufacturers to kick Skyhook to the curb?
There is a rich public record of Google abusing their search monopoly.
That take SOUNDS common sense and reasonable, but you're wrong, because of the complexity of supplier relationships and the conglomerate nature of Samsung (Samsung Mobile Display being largely independent as a business unit, and Apple being their biggest customer). There would be significant switching costs for Samsung to start using IPS LCDs in their own products at the volumes they are running OLEDs, and they certainly don't want to endanger massive subsidies from Apple by diverting their allocation of displays into their own product lines. They also have made strategic investments in OLED and I'm sure they want to honor those sunk costs.
Yeah. All those millions and millions of people are "brain dead fanbois." It couldn't be that Apple has done a good job inbound marketing, product design, product line segmentation, supply chain management, vertical integration, distribution, retail, and outbound marketing. What an incisive analysis...
Slashdot Mirror
That's such a stupid take. I can understand hating Apple and their litigiousness, but you're letting hatred completely cloud your vision--you are in a Reality Distortion Field of your own.
Putting aside their insane profit share, margins, market capitalization, and other numbers, Apple CREATED the modern touch screen smartphone market. It wasn't there until iPhone. "Smartphone" users were using Treos and Blackberrys before 2007. I'll wait for you to finish talking about the LG Prada now... OK, so the passing physical resemblance there would only deceive you until you used each device. Apple shipped with a ground-up multi-touch-based OS. There were no scroll bars or other KVM-paradigm derivative leftovers--they re-thought the paradigm, innovated, and licensed technologies to bring a new HCI/UX vision to the market. Integrating threads that pre-existed and packaging them in a way that represented something new, and established a market does count as innovation, whatever your prejudices against Apple are. And even though others have now taken this paradigm and either ripped it off (Samsung) or innovated in new directions (Palm webOS, Microsoft Metro), Apple is still "competing" just fine, obliterating the competition in terms of profit share while continuing to maintain premium margins. Haters gonna hate, but they CAN and DO compete.
They didn't invent the MP3 player either, but no one ever figured out how to "compete" with them there, and it wasn't due to lawsuits, it was because Apple was better at creating and marketing a solution
We are most certainly NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic, and we have always gone against public will when it was wrong (Jim Crow might still be in effect in the South if antidemocratic actions were strictly verboten).
The armature of all modern biological science on a biology test?! Say it ain't so!
ORLY? Given how prepared Apple's counsel has been in this case (particularly versus the Samsung clusterfuck) I will take them at their word when they say they timed out the witnesses. 10-12 minutes per witness is reasonable if they have specific nuggets of testimony to extract. The objections? Not so much.
C'mon. Trade dress. It's a sum of may parts that may sound ridiculous individually. Samsung even copied the packaging and the freaking charger here.
Sloppy focus doesn't even make sense in the MacOS metaphor where the active window's toolbar is always at the top of the screen (IMO).
I know this is tu quoque, but Windows 7 is far worse on that front. You can only have ONE wallpaper and it duplicates on each monitor even if they are different resolutions. And simple image files don't preview in Explorer. It's 2012. WTF. OS X has some great hidden tricks if you learn a few keyboard shortcuts, but Finder is the biggest issue. So I use PathFinder (http://cocoatech.com/pathfinder/), which is awesome.
Why are we not hearing from WebM and Google anymore? Is the industry going to fall in like with h.264 the same way they have with other royalty-encumbered standards?
Let's see... SAMs shouldn't have a hard time shooting a target of this size down. I imagine it would be difficult to move this thing out of the way of a storm as well. They should be looking at arrays of weather-balloon type devices or something. Perhaps just use satellites? This seems bald stupidity.
I don't get the third paragraph. Ever since iOS finally cut the docking cable you don't need a PC to get going, just iCloud credentials and a network connection. It's cool that you can download BitTorrent clients but neither platform has enough storage to go nuts with BT, especially the tiny storage options on N7.
Are there not Phandroid cultists too?
...which shows that you aren't very thoughtful, dismissing an article out of hand. Irony much?
"OK, now that folks value crowd-sourcing over professional editorial reviews, let's corner the market on professional editorial reviews."--Google
Ack, better than 3/4 now apparently
You, sir, are correct. Profit share is about 2/3 to AAPL.
There goes that old "patent litigation stifles innovation" cliche. You always hear this assertion and never an explanation for it. (I say this as someone who isn't even sure there should BE patents, BTW). Copying someone is the OPPOSITE of innovation. If Apple asserts patents for UI/UX elements successfully against Samsung, they will have to INNOVATE a new way to provide a good UX. If you look objectively at the document where Samsung analyzed the iPhone competitively you have to admit it looks like they were slavishly trying to copy the UI/UX. Imagine if you invented something and then someone took some of your ideas and created a copy of it. How would you react? Wouldn't you be pissed someone copied your ideas and is now making money off them without licensing them? Apple's sue-happy but they've looked pretty good to me in this case so far, and Samsung's council has been an embarrassment. I do think they are within their rights on some of these suits, including this one, as IP law stands today.
Yeah... and BMW is about to go out of business if they don't expand from their single-digit market share. I think they'll be able to sustain a niche market with their margins, they always have.
I've presented PPT and PPTX on mine trivially on a projector. It's used prevalently in business. It can be a toy, but it can be more too. Same could be said of Nexus 7.
As the post says, that quote by Ballmer is telling: "'Things work better when hardware and software are considered together,' he said. 'We control it all, we design it all, and we manufacture it all ourselves.'" This is a COMPLETE reversal of everything Microsoft has always been about (excepting I guess the Xbox), and if Microsoft's actions didn't deliver the "FU" to OEMs, then this explicit statement did. He seems to be saying "Apple was right all along," or at least "Apple is right when it comes to devices." This is a huge statement. The idea that a hardware manufacturer and vertical integration have won out in a world where software margins are so huge and hardware margins so thin is a sea change in the world of technology. Perhaps MS saw the death spiral of diminishing margins, the proliferation of a buyer-confusing myriad of options, and the continued failure to make iPad-competitive devices in the PC industry and decided angering OEM partners really didn't matter at this point. They saw IBM spin off Lenovo, and HP flirt with spinning off their PC division, and spinning off webOS. They saw that the value of these OEMs was diminishing enough to where they could threaten those revenue streams by offering their own hardware.
Despite being primarily an Apple user, I don't feel comfortable with this increasingly integrated model. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft can make the transition. It will be critical to be able to command greater margins than the OEMs can on the hardware, though Microsoft clearly will subsidize a platform in order to build out a network (as they did with Xbox). They obviously have the advantage of not having to pay licenses, so that will help. They will probably sell a lot of these--they have an inherent advantage. With a quality MS option, why purchase from a third party who probably can't compete on price anyway? This will hopefully mean purchasing power for parts, again helping margins.
I agree: sometimes, you get what you pay for.
All you have to do is look at Google's record of bullying, improperly exercising their search monopoly by manipulating results, or ripping off the Yelp!s, the Groupons, and the Skyhooks of the world to see that they are not "civil" in the least.
That doesn't make any sense. It's easy to avoid Microsoft. Try not using Google. Way harder.
There is a rich public record of Google abusing their search monopoly.
That take SOUNDS common sense and reasonable, but you're wrong, because of the complexity of supplier relationships and the conglomerate nature of Samsung (Samsung Mobile Display being largely independent as a business unit, and Apple being their biggest customer). There would be significant switching costs for Samsung to start using IPS LCDs in their own products at the volumes they are running OLEDs, and they certainly don't want to endanger massive subsidies from Apple by diverting their allocation of displays into their own product lines. They also have made strategic investments in OLED and I'm sure they want to honor those sunk costs.
Yeah. All those millions and millions of people are "brain dead fanbois." It couldn't be that Apple has done a good job inbound marketing, product design, product line segmentation, supply chain management, vertical integration, distribution, retail, and outbound marketing. What an incisive analysis...