Alienating iOS users is not in Google's best interest. iOS is more profitable to Google than Android, and thats before development costs are even considered. Most mobile search requests are served to iOS users, iOS is the mobile platform with the highest CPM, Safari is the most popular mobile browser, iOS users are all guaranteed to be using high-end products and thus have money to spend, and even if none of the previously mentioned facts were true, it would be stupid for an advertisement company to alienate a portion of its potential userbase by not providing proper support for their platform of choice.
Oh you make it sound so one sided. Apple wants their own map ecosystem because they know there's money to be made, plain and simple. Google wanted a little more recognition on their data (probably a logo or splash or something), and for Apple to tie in Google's Latitude service (optional location aware crap) to their nav app. Because there's money to be made. Apple refused because it's their walled garden.
Can you prove this? So far we've been dealing with facts -- ypu are presenting the thread with speculation, so please follow up with evidence.
Telling people to search for evidence against their own arguments when they don't even have burden of proof is irrational. if you can Google and you can come up with examples, then go ahead and do it. I am interested in seeing your examples, too, because your definition for being "smart enough" may also be flawed like the rest of your argument.
Open-source is a paradigm for developers, not users. Users are not supposed to care (and they really don't). If you care about open-source then you are a developer expecting the ability to at least read the source code for the software that you are using; in any other case your concern is irrational.
Well.. this story is how Apple removed Clueful from the app store, very likely for doing things it shouldn't be doing (i.e. getting out of the sandbox and snooping on other apps' behaviours). So, in fact, it seems quite possible that apps can go around Apple to do $thing_they're_not_supposed_to_do and still pass the review process (after all, Clueful did).
It would be very hard for an app to get out of the sandbox without that being noticed. Under controlled conditions, noticing that would be trivial unless the app prevented the code from executing during approval time, in which case it would simply not function. More than likely the app simply checks out what you have installed and compares it to a list of apps that the authors have previously analyzed under controlled conditions. This, in turn, would make the authors' analysis tools pretty good for Apple's own screening process.
Be advised. You don't want to buy a new iPhone or iPad and then find out that everyone looks at you like a huge loser for supporting a company that doesn't want you to be able to find out what they are doing with your information.
I find this kind of application of the verb "to support" as wrong outside of charity as I find the use of the term "to steal" when applied to copying. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by buying a product, I am paying money IN EXCHANGE for something I want.
Regarding your last remark, don't all companies do that? Can you name a single IT company that is truly transparent about the ways in which the data that they collect about you is used? If not, then what would you suggest as an alternative? And if your alternative is to simply disconnect from the system, can't you see that such a retarded martyr mentality is giving you even less freedom than the average Joe's mentality?
I'm an iOS developer, and I didn't sign anything. I agree to specific conditions under specific terms, but there's no signature anywhere to prove it, thus the only consequence of violating such NDA would be to get banned. Furthermore, the NDA that I agreed to only has to do with Apple software, not with other apps. Finally, even if all iOS developers had to sign anything, nobody needs to be an iOS developer in order to analyze iOS apps.
The only plausible explanation I see is that they were either hired by or are in negotiations with Apple. There is no other way Apple could force an NDA on them. The reason for pulling the app is probably the same as for pulling the original Siri app. Makes perfect sense for Apple to hire these people to help them screen apps, considering that they've both proven to be better at it than Apple themselves and that they're motivated.
because you know, apple is waaay less profitable than google and doesn't use your information for nefarious means. Nevermind the fact that they are the most profitable company in the USA....
I'd be surprised if they used my information for "nefarious means", not only because they actually show me everything that's sent back to them, but also because that's not their business model.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ruling is wrong and I would appeal if I was Apple. Even if they can not prove that Samsung copied their designs, that doesn't imply they didn't. The judge is simply incompetent.
Prior art counts from application time, not approval time, because the patenting party can always claim (with evidence in the form of the patent application itself) that they've been using the concept longer than you.
You clearly state that iPad shortages have nothing to do with supply and are due exclusively to high demand, in opposition to the Galaxy Tab, which could be in shortage exclusively because of low supply although its demand remains neglect able.
No, I didn't. The bold part couldn't have been deduced from my post at all, you pulled that out of your ass.
That is basically what you said. You required a proof for the refutation of the second statement, but failed to provide a proof of the first statement yourself.
This proves that you either lack reading comprehension (stupidity) or are purposely altering the facts (trolling). Re-read my post and rethink your stance if you're not attempting the latter. Either way I am done arguing with you.
I think I can field his question. I have a friend who was switched on to Apple by the company that I work for. Every conversation I have with him about computers has been "if you switch to Apple you won't have to deal with *blank*," which has to be followed by a methodical listing of all the features I would lose by switching to Apple. Only then will he shut up. It's probably the most annoying thing I have to deal with at work, followed by the actual customers.
That trait is not just common to Apple fanboys. I don't do it myself, but I see it done everywhere. I see the free software community that is praised so much here on Slashdot do it all the time, for example. If you have segregation, that kind of stuff is bound to happen. There is, however, the opposite, which is when other people decide to give me crap because there's a glowing bitten apple on the lid of my computer, or because I am using a phone with the same logo to access the net at lunch. Just yesterday I was on #minecraft at Freenode and an operator started to give me crap about my "overpriced toy computer" as soon as they learned that I was on a Mac, and when I questioned exactly what my "overpriced toy computer" couldn't do that his "pro computer" could and mentioned all the futures and hardware specs on my "overpriced toy computer", I was promptly banned and kicked off the channel, so as you can see the prejudice goes both ways thus making that kind of mentality completely irrational.
You self-contradicted yourself. There is simply no way around it. Just admit it and get done with it. The burden of the proof of the proof of any claim is always on the person who does it. You did it on the second sentence, and in exact the same way the poster you criticized did.
There's only burden of proof when something is mentioned against a specific common belief. At the time I thought there wasn't burden of proof because the market dominance of the iPad is well known, but as I mentioned (and you ignored), if you had read my other post to this branch of the thread you would have realized that I actually provided a source, which while not being much, is infinitely more than any of you did.
Now admit you're talking out of your ass or provide a source that counters mine.
One day I have to figure out where this stereotype came from. Following that I have to figure out the reason for homophobia, because, honestly, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP if people think I'm gay! Actually, I'd rather they thought so, because that would make my interaction with females feel less sex-driven. Of course I can't just tell people I'm gay, because then I'd be lying, but I don't see any drawbacks with causing confusion.
I should mention, for the record, I think this move by Apple is massively overstepping their authority. Leave enforcement of court rulings to the courts and regulatory agencies. No need to go all vigilante.
For starters, Apple is not enforcing anything, only ensuring that nobody can claim lack of knowledge. Secondly, all regulatory agencies that I know only act on complaints, so Apple would have to file them either way, and in the event that they have to, being able to prove that they tried to address the situation without litigation will serve as aggravation against the offenders.
Never give a legal opponent a chance to even think they can get away with a violation, always make sure they are well aware how royally fucked they will be unless they comply with your demands. That's how I treat companies that violate my civil rights as a citizen, that's how I would treat them if I was Apple.
Smartphones, as whole, are not innovative. What's inside your smartphone, on hardware and software level, has bits of innovation here and there with every generation.
Why are smartphones only innovative on the inside?
Blocking competitor because they infringe on your huge inventions of "searching multiple sources at once" and "replacing emails and phone numbers with hyperlinks" is a way for Apple to cop out of competing on merit.
Legalese isn't pretty; don't look at it if you don't understand it. You can disagree with software patents, that's fine, but if you do then blame the game, not the players. All the parties involved had the same opportunities as Apple to register the same patents; nobody is being unfairly treated here.
But, well, you already know that "innovation occured at Apple". All of it. I mean, they invented searching, and sliding locks and regex replace, what else there is for others to innovate? Others might as well close their mobile division at once, innovation already happened.
Of course not, and they've been sued by others for infringement too. To ignore that is a sign of bias.
Officially there's no such thing as an "iPad 3" - it's just "the New iPad". It might be the worst product name ever, but it is what it is.
Actually it's just iPad, "the new" is not part of the name and isn't referenced anywhere on the box. That said, even the iPad 2 was just iPad on the box (unlike the iPhone boxes, which prominently display the model), the only thing actually mentioning iPad 2 was the sticker with the specs. This one is only referred to as an iPad Wi-Fi 4G 64GB Black.
Wait wait wait, so you're saying that saying a shortage is not caused by excessive demand, and then you claim a shortage is caused by excessive demand.!?
No,
As to the facts: if anything has a shortage then it is indicative of demand outpacing supply. That doesn't mean that demand is huge or that supply is small, it just means that demand > supply. In the same way that 2 > 1, 3 > 2 and 5000 > 4000 > 1.
I didn't claim otherwise.
I don't think you actually understood my post. Try again.
The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.
There was no contradiction, I just assumed that everyone was well aware of the iPad's success, I was not the one making charges, so the burden of proof was not on me. If you aren't, feel free to read one of my other replies to this branch of the thread to at least get a clue, as I actually fulfilled the burden of proof that I never had to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how, when, and what did they lose or are losing to Google?
Alienating iOS users is not in Google's best interest. iOS is more profitable to Google than Android, and thats before development costs are even considered. Most mobile search requests are served to iOS users, iOS is the mobile platform with the highest CPM, Safari is the most popular mobile browser, iOS users are all guaranteed to be using high-end products and thus have money to spend, and even if none of the previously mentioned facts were true, it would be stupid for an advertisement company to alienate a portion of its potential userbase by not providing proper support for their platform of choice.
Certainly, because they never did the Xbox, which is even more closed and controlled, right?
Can you prove this? So far we've been dealing with facts -- ypu are presenting the thread with speculation, so please follow up with evidence.
Telling people to search for evidence against their own arguments when they don't even have burden of proof is irrational. if you can Google and you can come up with examples, then go ahead and do it. I am interested in seeing your examples, too, because your definition for being "smart enough" may also be flawed like the rest of your argument.
Open-source is a paradigm for developers, not users. Users are not supposed to care (and they really don't). If you care about open-source then you are a developer expecting the ability to at least read the source code for the software that you are using; in any other case your concern is irrational.
It would be very hard for an app to get out of the sandbox without that being noticed. Under controlled conditions, noticing that would be trivial unless the app prevented the code from executing during approval time, in which case it would simply not function. More than likely the app simply checks out what you have installed and compares it to a list of apps that the authors have previously analyzed under controlled conditions. This, in turn, would make the authors' analysis tools pretty good for Apple's own screening process.
I find this kind of application of the verb "to support" as wrong outside of charity as I find the use of the term "to steal" when applied to copying. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by buying a product, I am paying money IN EXCHANGE for something I want.
Regarding your last remark, don't all companies do that? Can you name a single IT company that is truly transparent about the ways in which the data that they collect about you is used? If not, then what would you suggest as an alternative? And if your alternative is to simply disconnect from the system, can't you see that such a retarded martyr mentality is giving you even less freedom than the average Joe's mentality?
I'm an iOS developer, and I didn't sign anything. I agree to specific conditions under specific terms, but there's no signature anywhere to prove it, thus the only consequence of violating such NDA would be to get banned. Furthermore, the NDA that I agreed to only has to do with Apple software, not with other apps. Finally, even if all iOS developers had to sign anything, nobody needs to be an iOS developer in order to analyze iOS apps.
The only plausible explanation I see is that they were either hired by or are in negotiations with Apple. There is no other way Apple could force an NDA on them. The reason for pulling the app is probably the same as for pulling the original Siri app. Makes perfect sense for Apple to hire these people to help them screen apps, considering that they've both proven to be better at it than Apple themselves and that they're motivated.
I'd be surprised if they used my information for "nefarious means", not only because they actually show me everything that's sent back to them, but also because that's not their business model.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ruling is wrong and I would appeal if I was Apple. Even if they can not prove that Samsung copied their designs, that doesn't imply they didn't. The judge is simply incompetent.
You already live in such a world, no need to imagine it. The only thing preventing that from happening is prior art.
Prior art counts from application time, not approval time, because the patenting party can always claim (with evidence in the form of the patent application itself) that they've been using the concept longer than you.
Then you don't understand publicity.
I do have enough information to conclude that you are a troll now.
No, I didn't. The bold part couldn't have been deduced from my post at all, you pulled that out of your ass.
This proves that you either lack reading comprehension (stupidity) or are purposely altering the facts (trolling). Re-read my post and rethink your stance if you're not attempting the latter. Either way I am done arguing with you.
That trait is not just common to Apple fanboys. I don't do it myself, but I see it done everywhere. I see the free software community that is praised so much here on Slashdot do it all the time, for example. If you have segregation, that kind of stuff is bound to happen. There is, however, the opposite, which is when other people decide to give me crap because there's a glowing bitten apple on the lid of my computer, or because I am using a phone with the same logo to access the net at lunch. Just yesterday I was on #minecraft at Freenode and an operator started to give me crap about my "overpriced toy computer" as soon as they learned that I was on a Mac, and when I questioned exactly what my "overpriced toy computer" couldn't do that his "pro computer" could and mentioned all the futures and hardware specs on my "overpriced toy computer", I was promptly banned and kicked off the channel, so as you can see the prejudice goes both ways thus making that kind of mentality completely irrational.
There's only burden of proof when something is mentioned against a specific common belief. At the time I thought there wasn't burden of proof because the market dominance of the iPad is well known, but as I mentioned (and you ignored), if you had read my other post to this branch of the thread you would have realized that I actually provided a source, which while not being much, is infinitely more than any of you did.
Now admit you're talking out of your ass or provide a source that counters mine.
One day I have to figure out where this stereotype came from. Following that I have to figure out the reason for homophobia, because, honestly, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP if people think I'm gay! Actually, I'd rather they thought so, because that would make my interaction with females feel less sex-driven. Of course I can't just tell people I'm gay, because then I'd be lying, but I don't see any drawbacks with causing confusion.
For starters, Apple is not enforcing anything, only ensuring that nobody can claim lack of knowledge. Secondly, all regulatory agencies that I know only act on complaints, so Apple would have to file them either way, and in the event that they have to, being able to prove that they tried to address the situation without litigation will serve as aggravation against the offenders.
Never give a legal opponent a chance to even think they can get away with a violation, always make sure they are well aware how royally fucked they will be unless they comply with your demands. That's how I treat companies that violate my civil rights as a citizen, that's how I would treat them if I was Apple.
Why are smartphones only innovative on the inside?
Legalese isn't pretty; don't look at it if you don't understand it. You can disagree with software patents, that's fine, but if you do then blame the game, not the players. All the parties involved had the same opportunities as Apple to register the same patents; nobody is being unfairly treated here.
Of course not, and they've been sued by others for infringement too. To ignore that is a sign of bias.
Actually it's just iPad, "the new" is not part of the name and isn't referenced anywhere on the box. That said, even the iPad 2 was just iPad on the box (unlike the iPhone boxes, which prominently display the model), the only thing actually mentioning iPad 2 was the sticker with the specs. This one is only referred to as an iPad Wi-Fi 4G 64GB Black.
No,
I didn't claim otherwise.
I don't think you actually understood my post. Try again.
There was no contradiction, I just assumed that everyone was well aware of the iPad's success, I was not the one making charges, so the burden of proof was not on me. If you aren't, feel free to read one of my other replies to this branch of the thread to at least get a clue, as I actually fulfilled the burden of proof that I never had to begin with.