iTunes was the main reason I went from my iPhone 3GS to my Galaxy S. While I never experienced the data corruption as some have, I found it really irritating to have to use Mac/iTunes or Win/iTunes to do something with my phone - I am using linux 99% of the time.
Yes, Apple and iPhone will really be losing out because of all those Linux users.
As TFA notes this is something Cook really needs to be credited for. the guy took a hell of a big gamble by paying big bucks to lock up his supply chain so he could get pretty damned fast ARM chips at prices the other guys just can't match.
Apple is just spending money very wisely. Microsoft bought Skype for $8bn, that is 8,000 million, and they tried to buy Yahoo for about 40,000 million. Apple paid 278 million for PA Semi who designs their chips, Intrinsity for an estimated 121 million, total 5% of Skype. There was a $100 million investment with I think Samsung years ago to guarantee a supply of LCD screens when they were just taking off. Where others ask "we have some money, what can we buy", Apple asks "what do we need, and how do we get it"?
I mean, they make like a billion dollars a month on iTunes...
I'd like to see a source for that. On the App Store, Apple claims that they have paid out 2.5 billion dollars to developers. Since the cut is 30% / 70%, that would be about one billion attributed to Apple in total since the store has been started. However, when you start taking off things like credit card cost, gift card rebates (when you buy a $50 gift card in a store and use it to buy $50 worth of software or music, Apple doesn't get $50), plus Apple has all the cost of running the store, Apple doesn't make anything near the amount of money that you claim from iTunes.
The affect vs effect issue was apparently enough to make someone make an entire domain [affectvseffect.org] about it.
Sadly that site gets it very wrong. It claims that "affect" is a verb whereas "effect" is a noun. In reality, there is also a noun "affect", mostly used in psychology (love/hate, joy/sorrow, wonder/desire are affects), and there is also the verb "effect" with the meaning "cause something to happen".
Incidentally, how well are Macs selling these days? Has Apple gained marketshare @ the expense of PCs?
Apple is strongest in the USA, so world wide numbers are weaker. If you look at world wide numbers, Apple has grown in the last quarter to slightly more than 5% of unit sales in the category of "workstation, desktop, laptop and netbook". However, Apple has about 12.5% of the total revenue in that category. iPads are not counted in this category by most people, but Apple's iPad revenue is again about 11% to 12% of that number.
Things that can be looked up in a reference manual or on the internet should be left out of interviews (unless the question is along the lines of "How would you determine XYZ?"). Keep it to methods used to solve a problem and you'll get a good understanding of how a particular person works and how they will work for you.
I think you should pose at least one question where the answer can found on the internet, give them a browser, and see what happens.
Just because they stole their trademark from the Beatles and got away with it, (with the promise that they would not use it for music), it's theirs now?
Apple Inc. paid Apple Corps about a nine digit sum for ownership of all of Apple Corps' trademarks, so it seems you are talking out of your arse.
What great things did Steve Jobs did? He sold overpriced pieces of shiny plastic to morons too stupid to realize it. He profited off of other people's hard work.
People like, for example, Dennis Ritchie. Literally everything Jobs did in the past decade was ultimately based off the work of Dennis Ritchie. Probably longer than that, but I don't know enough about Apple to say for sure.
The first sentence proves that you are completely clueless. TRULY completely clueless. Let's say you want to design a chip with about 100 million transistors. The only guy who I personally know who did this used a MacBook Pro to do it. Among my software developing colleagues the majority of computers used at home are Macs.
Where C is concerned, Mac OS was developed using Pascal. And Apple had Object-oriented Pascal (called CLASCAL) years before C++.
If this was an iPhone, the browser would only relay data if Apple approved it doing so!
Difficult to say. If any old application tries to send data to servers, Apple would find out. However, it is a browser, so it will be sending data to servers all the time. That's its business, so it would be hard to find.
I pointed out that it does not support the format, someone bought it to me as a present and did not know the first thing about formats, arguments like "not all players suport all formats" is a bit weak when flac is such a common format.
Well, is it actually such a common format? There have been about 400 million portable digital music players sold (commonly called MP3 players); about 300 million are iPods and most support ALAC while none support FLAC, and you may have some information about how many of the other 100 million support FLAC. All in all much less than a quarter supporting FLAC, and three quarters supporting ALAC.
So small changes in inputs can produce big, unpredictable changes in the output of complex systems? It's almost as if a butterfly flapping its wings could affect the weather!
Not what the article said. The article said: If a model can be parameterized, and there are so many possible parameters that the model can be made to match any past data by tweaking the parameters in many different ways, then you will end up with a model that doesn't predict the future.
In mathematics, if you have any set of n points yi = f (xi), then it is possible to find a polynomial of degree n-1 that fits these points exactly, and it is possible to find many polynomials of higher degrees fitting these points. If the data is just a constant with a bit of random noise, for example yi = 28.7 plus a random number between -0.01 and 0.01, then the actual data is very predictable (just predicting that it will be 28.7 is always very close to being correct). However, a polynomial trying to match the data will produce some enormous swings. The problem is with the model (data = high order polynomial) with a huge number of parameters, which didn't fit the reality.
I'm sorry, but judges are stupid, otherwise they wouldn't make decisions like these, and if they were intolerant of asses they wouldn't stand themself.
But I guess you think they are the voice of God and we should just lay down and spread our buttcheeks for them.
What makes you think you are half as intelligent as the average judge? The average judge managed to finish school, finish university, land a well paying job, and move out of their mother's home. Which of these did you achieve?
Shakespeare had one of his characters in the play Henry VI utter "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course no one would urge that in real life. But it seems like Shakespeare missed a couple of even bigger evil bastard fuck-ups from hell. Politicians and bureaucrats.
Quoted out of context. The purpose of killing lawyers in the play is to eliminate anyone who could try to get justice for people against a tyrant. Like what Pol Pot did in real life, starting with lawyers, school teachers, engineers, and so on.
I'm pretty sure Apple still sells more than 95% of tablets. That 65% figure didn't come from one of the regular market share studies, it was a one off from an analyst and considered Android tablet shipments, not sales. The HP Touchpad failure illustrated the difference between shipments and sales.
I am quite sure Apple's share will drop again when the next company with a product that is half decent, but not quite there with the iPad, is sold with a $300 loss per device. However, every time that happens one of Apple's competitors disappears permanently.
A capitalist of the Adam Smith variety would say that profit comes first, and that good customer service and mutual benefit is a consequence of pursuing profit.
My CEO, who tries very hard to be one tenth as successful as Steve Jobs (and that he failed so far is not his fault, but Apple's), says: "If you look after your customers, and you look after your employees, the stock will look after the shareholders just fine by itself". And that has worked quite well in the last years, for the customers, the employees, and the shareholders.
I guess the utilitarian value of Freedom will never be perceived by everyone, if they can grasp the concept, that is.
You mean the value of what Stallman calls "Freedom" with a capital F. So we all know that "Freedom" with a capital F is good for you and all becomes evil when you lose it.
Except that what Stallman cares for is "Freedom" of the software. I don't. I don't care about freedom for software, garden fences, or any other inanimate things. (Maybe when we someone produces a conscious AI, but at that point Stallman's freedom looks positively malicious when you think about it).
And the lack of utilitarian value was clearly demonstrated when VLC for iOS was shot down.
What's the rational behind capping one type of use, but not others? If it's network congestion, why does it matter how the network is being congested?
It's like a restaurant that offers an "all you can eat" buffet and doesn't allow your elephant in.
You don't pay for your data usage. You pay for the average data usage of everybody who has the same contract as you. So they disallow types of use that on the average lead to more network use, and allow types that on the average use less bandwidth.
So if you pay for "up to 5 GB" you are actually charged for "average use of anyone on the 5 GB plan", which is a lot less than 5 GB.
..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...
4 marks for insightful, and missing the point completely...
_If_ Google were not to put back something because of the RIAAs advertising money and so on, then why would the RIAA have to give them a DMCA takedown notice in the first place? Surely Google would then do whatever is asked from them?
Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.
On the other hand, if Universal sends a takedown notice, and the person who put the video up asks Google to restore it, then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
based on hybrid car standards, this is pretty darn terrible.
By any standards, this is quite terrible. So with a gallon of fuel and a full charge you can drive 32 + 20 = 52 miles. I can drive a bit over 60 miles per UK gallon / 50 miles per US gallon, without having to charge. And immediately after that, I can go another 60 miles with the next gallon, without having to recharge at all. And my car costs just a tiny little bit less than $95,000.
One of the best examples of the "Inventors' Dilemma". The rule is: If you don't cannibalize your products, someone else will. RIM had a product that was selling great. Inevitable that it wouldn't last forever. Someone would kill it. Happened to be iPhone and Android phones; if RIM had decent management then it would be a RIM phone destroying the Blackberry.
Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?
That's in principle it. Why the negotiations fell through would make a difference. If Samsung asked for $500 per iPhone and Apple refuses, or if Apple offered $500 for _all_ iPhones and Samsung refuses, that would make a difference. Or hypothetically, if Apple offers $X and Samsung demands $2X, Apple might offer to pay $X now and put another $X plus interest into escrow and let a court decide how much should be paid; that could make it hard for Samsung to get a sales ban.
samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..
The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make customers think "it looks like an iPad, so it must be good". Instead they have to compete with Apple on their own merits, which is what competition is all about.
That said, Samsung can of course claim that they want to negotiate with Apple, and since this design patent is not _essential_ as shown by Sony, Toshiba, RIM, HP and many others, Apple can then just say "we are not selling any licenses" and that finishes the negotiations. Samsung's patents fall under the "essential patents" category so they cannot refuse license negotiations.
The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.
I cannot quite see how you come from a story about Samsung wanting a ban of iPhone sales because of an alleged patent infringement by Apple, to the conclusion that Apple (and Microsoft) wants to "own all your code". Can you give an example where Apple has tried to gain ownership over someone else's code?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Apple and iPhone will really be losing out because of all those Linux users.
As TFA notes this is something Cook really needs to be credited for. the guy took a hell of a big gamble by paying big bucks to lock up his supply chain so he could get pretty damned fast ARM chips at prices the other guys just can't match.
Apple is just spending money very wisely. Microsoft bought Skype for $8bn, that is 8,000 million, and they tried to buy Yahoo for about 40,000 million. Apple paid 278 million for PA Semi who designs their chips, Intrinsity for an estimated 121 million, total 5% of Skype. There was a $100 million investment with I think Samsung years ago to guarantee a supply of LCD screens when they were just taking off. Where others ask "we have some money, what can we buy", Apple asks "what do we need, and how do we get it"?
I mean, they make like a billion dollars a month on iTunes...
I'd like to see a source for that. On the App Store, Apple claims that they have paid out 2.5 billion dollars to developers. Since the cut is 30% / 70%, that would be about one billion attributed to Apple in total since the store has been started. However, when you start taking off things like credit card cost, gift card rebates (when you buy a $50 gift card in a store and use it to buy $50 worth of software or music, Apple doesn't get $50), plus Apple has all the cost of running the store, Apple doesn't make anything near the amount of money that you claim from iTunes.
The affect vs effect issue was apparently enough to make someone make an entire domain [affectvseffect.org] about it.
Sadly that site gets it very wrong. It claims that "affect" is a verb whereas "effect" is a noun. In reality, there is also a noun "affect", mostly used in psychology (love/hate, joy/sorrow, wonder/desire are affects), and there is also the verb "effect" with the meaning "cause something to happen".
Example: The good news effected an affect of joy.
Incidentally, how well are Macs selling these days? Has Apple gained marketshare @ the expense of PCs?
Apple is strongest in the USA, so world wide numbers are weaker. If you look at world wide numbers, Apple has grown in the last quarter to slightly more than 5% of unit sales in the category of "workstation, desktop, laptop and netbook". However, Apple has about 12.5% of the total revenue in that category. iPads are not counted in this category by most people, but Apple's iPad revenue is again about 11% to 12% of that number.
Things that can be looked up in a reference manual or on the internet should be left out of interviews (unless the question is along the lines of "How would you determine XYZ?"). Keep it to methods used to solve a problem and you'll get a good understanding of how a particular person works and how they will work for you.
I think you should pose at least one question where the answer can found on the internet, give them a browser, and see what happens.
Just because they stole their trademark from the Beatles and got away with it, (with the promise that they would not use it for music), it's theirs now?
Apple Inc. paid Apple Corps about a nine digit sum for ownership of all of Apple Corps' trademarks, so it seems you are talking out of your arse.
What great things did Steve Jobs did? He sold overpriced pieces of shiny plastic to morons too stupid to realize it. He profited off of other people's hard work.
People like, for example, Dennis Ritchie. Literally everything Jobs did in the past decade was ultimately based off the work of Dennis Ritchie. Probably longer than that, but I don't know enough about Apple to say for sure.
The first sentence proves that you are completely clueless. TRULY completely clueless. Let's say you want to design a chip with about 100 million transistors. The only guy who I personally know who did this used a MacBook Pro to do it. Among my software developing colleagues the majority of computers used at home are Macs.
Where C is concerned, Mac OS was developed using Pascal. And Apple had Object-oriented Pascal (called CLASCAL) years before C++.
If this was an iPhone, the browser would only relay data if Apple approved it doing so!
Difficult to say. If any old application tries to send data to servers, Apple would find out. However, it is a browser, so it will be sending data to servers all the time. That's its business, so it would be hard to find.
I pointed out that it does not support the format, someone bought it to me as a present and did not know the first thing about formats, arguments like "not all players suport all formats" is a bit weak when flac is such a common format.
Well, is it actually such a common format? There have been about 400 million portable digital music players sold (commonly called MP3 players); about 300 million are iPods and most support ALAC while none support FLAC, and you may have some information about how many of the other 100 million support FLAC. All in all much less than a quarter supporting FLAC, and three quarters supporting ALAC.
So small changes in inputs can produce big, unpredictable changes in the output of complex systems? It's almost as if a butterfly flapping its wings could affect the weather!
Not what the article said. The article said: If a model can be parameterized, and there are so many possible parameters that the model can be made to match any past data by tweaking the parameters in many different ways, then you will end up with a model that doesn't predict the future.
In mathematics, if you have any set of n points yi = f (xi), then it is possible to find a polynomial of degree n-1 that fits these points exactly, and it is possible to find many polynomials of higher degrees fitting these points. If the data is just a constant with a bit of random noise, for example yi = 28.7 plus a random number between -0.01 and 0.01, then the actual data is very predictable (just predicting that it will be 28.7 is always very close to being correct). However, a polynomial trying to match the data will produce some enormous swings. The problem is with the model (data = high order polynomial) with a huge number of parameters, which didn't fit the reality.
I'm sorry, but judges are stupid, otherwise they wouldn't make decisions like these, and if they were intolerant of asses they wouldn't stand themself. But I guess you think they are the voice of God and we should just lay down and spread our buttcheeks for them.
What makes you think you are half as intelligent as the average judge? The average judge managed to finish school, finish university, land a well paying job, and move out of their mother's home. Which of these did you achieve?
Shakespeare had one of his characters in the play Henry VI utter "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course no one would urge that in real life. But it seems like Shakespeare missed a couple of even bigger evil bastard fuck-ups from hell. Politicians and bureaucrats.
Quoted out of context. The purpose of killing lawyers in the play is to eliminate anyone who could try to get justice for people against a tyrant. Like what Pol Pot did in real life, starting with lawyers, school teachers, engineers, and so on.
I'm pretty sure Apple still sells more than 95% of tablets. That 65% figure didn't come from one of the regular market share studies, it was a one off from an analyst and considered Android tablet shipments, not sales. The HP Touchpad failure illustrated the difference between shipments and sales.
I am quite sure Apple's share will drop again when the next company with a product that is half decent, but not quite there with the iPad, is sold with a $300 loss per device. However, every time that happens one of Apple's competitors disappears permanently.
A capitalist of the Adam Smith variety would say that profit comes first, and that good customer service and mutual benefit is a consequence of pursuing profit.
My CEO, who tries very hard to be one tenth as successful as Steve Jobs (and that he failed so far is not his fault, but Apple's), says: "If you look after your customers, and you look after your employees, the stock will look after the shareholders just fine by itself". And that has worked quite well in the last years, for the customers, the employees, and the shareholders.
I guess the utilitarian value of Freedom will never be perceived by everyone, if they can grasp the concept, that is.
You mean the value of what Stallman calls "Freedom" with a capital F. So we all know that "Freedom" with a capital F is good for you and all becomes evil when you lose it.
Except that what Stallman cares for is "Freedom" of the software. I don't. I don't care about freedom for software, garden fences, or any other inanimate things. (Maybe when we someone produces a conscious AI, but at that point Stallman's freedom looks positively malicious when you think about it).
And the lack of utilitarian value was clearly demonstrated when VLC for iOS was shot down.
What's the rational behind capping one type of use, but not others? If it's network congestion, why does it matter how the network is being congested?
It's like a restaurant that offers an "all you can eat" buffet and doesn't allow your elephant in.
You don't pay for your data usage. You pay for the average data usage of everybody who has the same contract as you. So they disallow types of use that on the average lead to more network use, and allow types that on the average use less bandwidth.
So if you pay for "up to 5 GB" you are actually charged for "average use of anyone on the 5 GB plan", which is a lot less than 5 GB.
..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...
4 marks for insightful, and missing the point completely...
_If_ Google were not to put back something because of the RIAAs advertising money and so on, then why would the RIAA have to give them a DMCA takedown notice in the first place? Surely Google would then do whatever is asked from them?
Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.
On the other hand, if Universal sends a takedown notice, and the person who put the video up asks Google to restore it, then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
based on hybrid car standards, this is pretty darn terrible.
By any standards, this is quite terrible. So with a gallon of fuel and a full charge you can drive 32 + 20 = 52 miles. I can drive a bit over 60 miles per UK gallon / 50 miles per US gallon, without having to charge. And immediately after that, I can go another 60 miles with the next gallon, without having to recharge at all. And my car costs just a tiny little bit less than $95,000.
It seems that Neil McAllister has never heard of LLVM and Clang, while Microsoft obviously has.
One of the best examples of the "Inventors' Dilemma". The rule is: If you don't cannibalize your products, someone else will. RIM had a product that was selling great. Inevitable that it wouldn't last forever. Someone would kill it. Happened to be iPhone and Android phones; if RIM had decent management then it would be a RIM phone destroying the Blackberry.
Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?
That's in principle it. Why the negotiations fell through would make a difference. If Samsung asked for $500 per iPhone and Apple refuses, or if Apple offered $500 for _all_ iPhones and Samsung refuses, that would make a difference. Or hypothetically, if Apple offers $X and Samsung demands $2X, Apple might offer to pay $X now and put another $X plus interest into escrow and let a court decide how much should be paid; that could make it hard for Samsung to get a sales ban.
samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..
The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make customers think "it looks like an iPad, so it must be good". Instead they have to compete with Apple on their own merits, which is what competition is all about.
That said, Samsung can of course claim that they want to negotiate with Apple, and since this design patent is not _essential_ as shown by Sony, Toshiba, RIM, HP and many others, Apple can then just say "we are not selling any licenses" and that finishes the negotiations. Samsung's patents fall under the "essential patents" category so they cannot refuse license negotiations.
The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.
I cannot quite see how you come from a story about Samsung wanting a ban of iPhone sales because of an alleged patent infringement by Apple, to the conclusion that Apple (and Microsoft) wants to "own all your code". Can you give an example where Apple has tried to gain ownership over someone else's code?